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-71
EM-260
EM-542
EM-719
EM-890
EM-941
EM-964

Add EM to Compare:

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	Community flowering date, Central French Alps	Coral taxa and land development, St.Croix, VI, USA	Coastal protection in Belize	Seed mix for native plant establishment, IA, USA	HWB Blood pressure, Great Lakes waterfront, USA	ESTIMAP - Pollination potential, Iran	EcoSim II - method
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	Community weighted mean flowering date, Central French Alps	Coral taxa richness and land development, St.Croix, Virgin Islands, USA	Coastal Protection provided by Coral, Seagrasses and Mangroves in Belize:	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
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	EU Biodiversity Action 5	US EPA	InVEST	None	None	None	None
EM Source Document ID	260	96	350	394	422 ? Comment: Has not been submitted to Journal yet, but has been peer reviewed by EPA inhouse and outside reviewers	434	448
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R.	Oliver, L. M., Lehrter, J. C. and Fisher, W. S.	Guannel, G., Arkema, K., Ruggiero, P., and G. Verutes	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
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2011	2011	2016	2018	None	2020	2000
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services	Relating landscape development intensity to coral reef condition in the watersheds of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands	The Power of Three: Coral Reefs, Seagrasses and Mangroves Protect Coastal Regions and Increase Their Resilience	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
Document Status em.detail.statusCategoryHelp ?	Peer reviewed and published	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
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published report	Journal manuscript submitted or in review	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript

Software and Access

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not identified in paper	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	https://ecopath.org/downloads/
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	Sandra Lavorel	Leah Oliver	Greg Guannel	Justin Meissen	Ted Angradi	Ehsan Rahini	Carl Walters
Contact Address	Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France	National Health and Environmental Research Effects Laboratory	The Nature Conservancy, Coral Gables, FL. USA	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
Contact Email	sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr	leah.oliver@epa.gov	greg.guannel@gmail.com	Not reported	tedangradi@gmail.com	ehsanrahimi666@gmail.com	c.walters@oceans.ubc.ca

EM Description

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
Summary Description em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp ?	ABSTRACT: "Here, we propose a new approach for the analysis, mapping and understanding of multiple ES delivery in landscapes. Spatially explicit single ES models based on plant traits and abiotic characteristics are combined to identify ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spots of multiple ES delivery, and the land use and biotic determinants of such distributions. We demonstrate the value of this trait-based approach as compared to a pure land-use approach for a pastoral landscape from the central French Alps, and highlight how it improves understanding of ecological constraints to, and opportunities for, the delivery of multiple services." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Community-weighted mean date of flowering onset was modelled using mixed models with land use and abiotic variables as fixed effects (LU + abiotic model) and year as a random effect…and modelled for each 20 x 20 m pixel using GLM estimated effects for each land use category and estimated regression coefficients with abiotic variables."	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: "Natural habitats have the ability to protect coastal communities against the impacts of waves and storms, yet it is unclear how different habitats complement each other to reduce those impacts. Here, we investigate the individual and combined coastal protection services supplied by live corals on reefs, seagrass meadows, and mangrove forests during both non-storm and storm conditions, and under present and future sea-level conditions. Using idealized profiles of fringing and barrier reefs, we quantify the services supplied by these habitats using various metrics of inundation and erosion. We find that, together, live corals, seagrasses, and mangroves supply more protection services than any individual habitat or any combination of two habitats. Specifically, we find that, while mangroves are the most effective at protecting the coast under non-storm and storm conditions, live corals and seagrasses also moderate the impact of waves and storms, thereby further reducing the vulnerability of coastal regions. Also, in addition to structural differences, the amount of service supplied by habitats in our analysis is highly dependent on the geomorphic setting, habitat location and forcing conditions: live corals in the fringing reef profile supply more protection services than seagrasses; seagrasses in the barrier reef profile supply more protection services than live corals; and seagrasses, in our simulations, can even compensate for the long-term degradation of the barrier reef. Results of this study demonstrate the importance of taking integrated and place-based approaches when quantifying and managing for the coastal protection services supplied by ecosystems."	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 "
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	None identified	Not applicable	Future rock lobster fisheries management	Seed mix design and management practices for native plant restoration	None identified	None reported	None
Biophysical Context	Elevation ranges from 1552 to 2442 m, on predominantly south-facing slopes	nearshore; <1.5 km offshore; <12 m depth	barrier reef and fringing reef in nearshore coastal marine system	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
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	No scenarios presented	Not applicable	Reef type, Sea level increase, storm conditions, seagrass conditions, coral conditions, vegetation types and conditions	No scenarios presented	N/A	N/A	N/A

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
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 (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method Only
New or Pre-existing EM? em.detail.newOrExistHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing 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-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	Doc-260 \| Doc-269	None	None	Doc-395	Doc-422	Doc-432	None
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	EM-65 \| EM-66 \| EM-68 \| EM-69 \| EM-70 \| EM-79 \| EM-80 \| EM-81 \| EM-82 \| EM-83	None	None	EM-728	EM-886 \| EM-888 \| EM-889 \| EM-891 \| EM-893 \| EM-894 \| EM-895	EM-939	None

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	2007-2008	2006-2007	2005-2013	2015-2017	2022	2020	Not applicable
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-dependent	time-dependent	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-dependent
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	both
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	discrete	discrete	Not applicable	Not applicable	discrete ? Comment: Modeller dependent
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	1	1	Not applicable	Not applicable	1
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Second	Year	Not applicable	Not applicable	Day

EM Spatial Extent

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Physiographic or Ecological	Physiographic or Ecological	Geopolitical	Other	Geopolitical	Geopolitical	Other
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	Central French Alps	St.Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands	Coast of Belize	Iowa State University Northeast Research and Demonstration Farm	Great Lakes waterfront	Iran	Not applicable
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	10-100 km^2	10-100 km^2	100-1000 km^2	<1 ha	1000-10,000 km^2.	>1,000,000 km^2	Not applicable

Spatial Distribution of Computations

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
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 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)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable	length, for linear feature (e.g., stream mile)	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	20 m x 20 m	Not applicable	1 meter	20 ft x 28 ft	Not applicable	ha^2	Not applicable

EM Structure and Computation Approach

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	Analytic	Analytic	Analytic	Analytic	Numeric	Numeric	Analytic
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	stochastic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	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-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	No	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	No	No
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	No	No
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	R squared \| 45.2 \| Not applicable	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 ?	No	No	No ? Comment: Used the SWAN model (see below for referenece) with Generation 1 or 2 wind-wave formulations to validate the wave development portion of the model. Booij N, Ris RC, Holthuijsen LH. A third-generation wave model for coastal regions 1. Model description and validation. J Geophys Res. American Geophysical Union; 1999;104: 7649?7666.	No	No	No	Not applicable
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	No	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	No	Not applicable
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	Not applicable	Yes	No	Not applicable
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-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
Europe France	None	North America Belize	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

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

EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
None	Tropical Atlantic West Tropical Atlantic Tropical Southwestern Atlantic	Tropical Atlantic West Tropical Atlantic Tropical Northwestern Atlantic Western Caribbean	None	None	None	None

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	45.05	17.75	18.63	42.93	42.26	32.29	Not applicable
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	6.4	-64.75	-88.22	-92.57	-87.84	53.68	Not applicable
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	WGS84	NAD83	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	Not applicable
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Provided	Estimated	Estimated	Provided	Estimated	Estimated	Not applicable

Environments and Scales Modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine	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
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows.	stony coral reef	coral reefs	Research farm in historic grassland	Lake Michigan & Lake Erie waterfront	terrestrial land types	Pelagic
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	Not applicable	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

Scale and taxa of organisms modeled

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Community	Guild or Assemblage	Guild or Assemblage	Community	Not applicable	Not applicable	Other (Comment) ? Comment: Varied levels of taxonomic order

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
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	None Available	Species Apis mellifera Apis florea	other Whiting shrimp Whales Seals Cod Phytoplankton Mackerel Benthos Zooplankton Anchovy

EnviroAtlas URL

EM-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
None Available	None Available	GAP Ecological Systems, National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHD PlusV2), Average Annual Precipitation	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

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-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
None	[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 Mediation of flows Liquid flows Flood protection Mass flows Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates	[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

<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-71	EM-260	EM-542	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964
None	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Fauna (4) Invertebrates Quality Indicator	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Composite (8) Regulation of extreme events Extreme Event Indicator Flow 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

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:

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

EM Modeling Approach

Comment:

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)