{PAGE NAME} | {WEB AREA NAME}

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	InVEST crop pollination, California, USA	*	*	*
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	InVEST crop pollination, California, USA	*	*	*
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	InVEST	*	*	*
EM Source Document ID	279	*	*	*
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	Lonsdorf, E., Kremen, C., Ricketts, T., Winfree, R., Williams, N., and S. Greenleaf	*	*	*
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2009	*	*	*
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes	*	*	*
Document Status em.detail.statusCategoryHelp ?	Peer reviewed and published	*	*	*
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	Published journal manuscript	*	*	*

Software and Access (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/models/crop_pollination.html	*	*	*
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	Eric Lonsdorf	*	*	*
Contact Address	Conservation and Science Dept, Linclon Park Zoo, 2001 N. Clark St, Chicago, IL 60614, USA	*	*	*
Contact Email	ericlonsdorf@lpzoo.org	*	*	*

EM Description (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Summary Description em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp ?	Please note: This ESML entry describes a specific, published application of an InVEST model. Different versions (e.g. different tiers) or more recent versions of this model may be available at the InVEST website. ABSTRACT: "Background and Aims: Crop pollination by bees and other animals is an essential ecosystem service. Ensuring the maintenance of the service requires a full understanding of the contributions of landscape elements to pollinator populations and crop pollination. Here, the first quantitative model that predicts pollinator abundance on a landscape is described and tested. Methods: Using information on pollinator nesting resources, floral resources and foraging distances, the model predicts the relative abundance of pollinators within nesting habitats. From these nesting areas, it then predicts relative abundances of pollinators on the farms requiring pollination services. Model outputs are compared with data from coffee in Costa Rica, watermelon and sunflower in California and watermelon in New Jersey–Pennsylvania (NJPA). Key Results: Results from Costa Rica and California, comparing field estimates of pollinator abundance, richness or services with model estimates, are encouraging, explaining up to 80 % of variance among farms. However, the model did not predict observed pollinator abundances on NJPA, so continued model improvement and testing are necessary. The inability of the model to predict pollinator abundances in the NJPA landscape may be due to not accounting for fine-scale floral and nesting resources within the landscapes surrounding farms, rather than the logic of our model. Conclusions: The importance of fine-scale resources for pollinator service delivery was supported by sensitivity analyses indicating that the model's predictions depend largely on estimates of nesting and floral resources within crops. Despite the need for more research at the finer-scale, the approach fills an important gap by providing quantitative and mechanistic model from which to evaluate policy decisions and develop land-use plans that promote pollination conservation and service delivery. "	Please note: This ESML entry describes a specific, published application of an InVEST model. Different versions (e.g. different tiers) or more recent versions of this model may be available at the InVEST website. ABSTRACT: "Background and Aims: Crop pollination by bees and other animals is an essential ecosystem service. Ensuring the maintenance of the service requires a full understanding of the contributions of landscape elements to pollinator populations and crop pollination. Here, the first quantitative model that predicts pollinator abundance on a landscape is described and tested. Methods: Using information on pollinator nesting resources, floral resources and foraging distances, the model predicts the relative abundance of pollinators within nesting habitats. From these nesting areas, it then predicts relative abundances of pollinators on the farms requiring pollination services. Model outputs are compared with data from coffee in Costa Rica, watermelon and sunflower in California and watermelon in New Jersey–Pennsylvania (NJPA). Key Results: Results from Costa Rica and California, comparing field estimates of pollinator abundance, richness or services with model estimates, are encouraging, explaining up to 80 % of variance among farms. However, the model did not predict observed pollinator abundances on NJPA, so continued model improvement and testing are necessary. The inability of the model to predict pollinator abundances in the NJPA landscape may be due to not accounting for fine-scale floral and nesting resources within the landscapes surrounding farms, rather than the logic of our model. Conclusions: The importance of fine-scale resources for pollinator service delivery was supported by sensitivity analyses indicating that the model's predictions depend largely on estimates of nesting and floral resources within crops. Despite the need for more research at the finer-scale, the approach fills an important gap by providing quantitative and mechanistic model from which to evaluate policy decisions and develop land-use plans that promote pollination conservation and service delivery."	Please note: This ESML entry describes a specific, published application of an InVEST model. Different versions (e.g. different tiers) or more recent versions of this model may be available at the InVEST website. ABSTRACT: "Background and Aims: Crop pollination by bees and other animals is an essential ecosystem service. Ensuring the maintenance of the service requires a full understanding of the contributions of landscape elements to pollinator populations and crop pollination. Here, the first quantitative model that predicts pollinator abundance on a landscape is described and tested. Methods: Using information on pollinator nesting resources, floral resources and foraging distances, the model predicts the relative abundance of pollinators within nesting habitats. From these nesting areas, it then predicts relative abundances of pollinators on the farms requiring pollination services. Model outputs are compared with data from coffee in Costa Rica, watermelon and sunflower in California and watermelon in New Jersey–Pennsylvania (NJPA). Key Results: Results from Costa Rica and California, comparing field estimates of pollinator abundance, richness or services with model estimates, are encouraging, explaining up to 80 % of variance among farms. However, the model did not predict observed pollinator abundances on NJPA, so continued model improvement and testing are necessary. The inability of the model to predict pollinator abundances in the NJPA landscape may be due to not accounting for fine-scale floral and nesting resources within the landscapes surrounding farms, rather than the logic of our model. Conclusions: The importance of fine-scale resources for pollinator service delivery was supported by sensitivity analyses indicating that the model's predictions depend largely on estimates of nesting and floral resources within crops. Despite the need for more research at the finer-scale, the approach fills an important gap by providing quantitative and mechanistic model from which to evaluate policy decisions and develop land-use plans that promote pollination conservation and service delivery."	Please note: This ESML entry describes a specific, published application of an InVEST model. Different versions (e.g. different tiers) or more recent versions of this model may be available at the InVEST website. ABSTRACT: "Background and Aims: Crop pollination by bees and other animals is an essential ecosystem service. Ensuring the maintenance of the service requires a full understanding of the contributions of landscape elements to pollinator populations and crop pollination. Here, the first quantitative model that predicts pollinator abundance on a landscape is described and tested. Methods: Using information on pollinator nesting resources, floral resources and foraging distances, the model predicts the relative abundance of pollinators within nesting habitats. From these nesting areas, it then predicts relative abundances of pollinators on the farms requiring pollination services. Model outputs are compared with data from coffee in Costa Rica, watermelon and sunflower in California and watermelon in New Jersey–Pennsylvania (NJPA). Key Results: Results from Costa Rica and California, comparing field estimates of pollinator abundance, richness or services with model estimates, are encouraging, explaining up to 80 % of variance among farms. However, the model did not predict observed pollinator abundances on NJPA, so continued model improvement and testing are necessary. The inability of the model to predict pollinator abundances in the NJPA landscape may be due to not accounting for fine-scale floral and nesting resources within the landscapes surrounding farms, rather than the logic of our model. Conclusions: The importance of fine-scale resources for pollinator service delivery was supported by sensitivity analyses indicating that the model's predictions depend largely on estimates of nesting and floral resources within crops. Despite the need for more research at the finer-scale, the approach fills an important gap by providing quantitative and mechanistic model from which to evaluate policy decisions and develop land-use plans that promote pollination conservation and service delivery."
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	None identified	*	*	*
Biophysical Context	No additional description provided	*	*	*
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	No scenarios presented	*	*	*

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Model Run Associated with a Specific EM Application	Model Run Associated with a Specific EM Application	Model Run Associated with a Specific EM Application
New or Pre-existing EM? em.detail.newOrExistHelp ?	New or revised model	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002

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

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	Doc-279	None	None	None
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	EM-340 \| EM-339	None	None	None

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	2001-2002	2001	2001	2002
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	time-stationary	*	*	*
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	Not applicable	*	*	*
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	Not applicable	*	*	*
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	Not applicable	*	*	*
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	Not applicable	*	*	*

EM spatial extent (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Other	*	*	*
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	Agricultural landscape, Yolo County, Central Valley	*	*	*
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	1000-10,000 km^2.	*	*	*

Spatial Distribution of Computations (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	*	*	*
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	area, for pixel or radial feature	*	*	*
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	30 m x 30 m	*	*	*

EM Structure and Computation Approach (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	Analytic	*	*	*
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	deterministic	*	*	*
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	*	*	*

Model Checking Procedures Used (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	Unclear	*	*	*
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	No	*	*	*
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	None	*	*	*
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	Yes ? Comment: Performed just for "Total pollinator abundance service score".	*	*	*
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	No	*	*	*
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	No	*	*	*
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	Not applicable	*	*	*

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Location of EM Application (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

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

EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
North America United States California	*	*	*

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

EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
None	*	*	*

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	38.7	*	*	*
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-121.8	*	*	*
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	WGS84	*	*	*
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Estimated	*	*	*

Environments and Scales Modeled (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) \| Agroecosystems	*	*	*
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Cropland and surrounding landscape	*	*	*
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	*	*	*

Organisms modeled (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Species	*	*	*

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
other Small striped 2 Small striped 1 Genus Melissodes Native Megachile 1 Native Megachile 2 Hylaeus Lasioglossum Dialictus 2 Evylaeus Megachile Dialictus Family Anthophorid 6 Anthophorid 7 Anthophorid 4 Anthophorid 5 Anthophorid 2 Anthophorid 3 Anthophorid 1 Species Ceratina dallatorreana Ceratina nanula Megachile apicalis Agapostemon texanus Bombus californicus Ceratina timberlakei Halictus ligatus Osmia californica Bombus sonorus Peponapis pruinosa Diadasia enavata Apis mellifera Osmia regulina Osmia atrocyanea Halictus farinosus Ashmeadiella aridula Bombus crotchii Bombus vosnesenskii Svastra obliqua Osmia texana Xylocopa tabaniformis Anthophora urbana Halictus tripartitus Bombus melanopygus	*	*	*

EnviroAtlas URL

EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
GAP Ecological Systems	None Available	None Available	None Available

EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system

* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left

CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)

EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Pollination and seed dispersal	*	*	*

National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus

(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)

EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Agroecosystems (22) Fauna (4) Pollinators Stock Indicator	*	*	*

EM Variable Names (and Units)

* Note that for runs, variable name is displayed only where data for that variable differed by run AND those differences were reported in the source document. Where differences occurred but were not reported, the variable is not listed. Click on variable name to view details.

To view run information for variables, select any variable below or view run data for all variables.

Predictor

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Driving Variables (and Units) em.detail.drivingVariableHelp ?	Farm (y/n) (Not applicable) Land cover types (Not applicable) Pollinator species (Not applicable)	Farm (y/n) (Not applicable) Land cover types (Not applicable) Pollinator species (Not applicable)	Farm (y/n) (Not applicable) Land cover types (Not applicable) Pollinator species (Not applicable)	Farm (y/n) (Not applicable) Land cover types (Not applicable) Pollinator species (Not applicable)
Constant or Factor Variables (and Units) em.detail.constantFactorVariableHelp ?	Crops pollinator species requirement (y/n) (Not applicable) Expected pollinator species foraging distance (m) Floral seasons (Not applicable) Nesting suitability of nesting type for pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Nesting types (Not applicable) Relative abundance of pollinator species in landscape (unitless) Suitability of land cover for foraging during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Suitability of land cover for nesting type (unitless (0-1)) Weight describing importance of floral season for pollinator species (unitless (0-1))	Crops pollinator species requirement (y/n) (Not applicable) Expected pollinator species foraging distance (m) Floral seasons (Not applicable) Nesting suitability of nesting type for pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Nesting types (Not applicable) Relative abundance of pollinator species in landscape (unitless) Suitability of land cover for foraging during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Suitability of land cover for nesting type (unitless (0-1)) Weight describing importance of floral season for pollinator species (unitless (0-1))	Crops pollinator species requirement (y/n) (Not applicable) Expected pollinator species foraging distance (m) Floral seasons (Not applicable) Nesting suitability of nesting type for pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Nesting types (Not applicable) Relative abundance of pollinator species in landscape (unitless) Suitability of land cover for foraging during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Suitability of land cover for nesting type (unitless (0-1)) Weight describing importance of floral season for pollinator species (unitless (0-1))	Crops pollinator species requirement (y/n) (Not applicable) Expected pollinator species foraging distance (m) Floral seasons (Not applicable) Nesting suitability of nesting type for pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Nesting types (Not applicable) Relative abundance of pollinator species in landscape (unitless) Suitability of land cover for foraging during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Suitability of land cover for nesting type (unitless (0-1)) Weight describing importance of floral season for pollinator species (unitless (0-1))

Intermediate

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Intermediate (Computed) Variables (and Units) em.detail.intermediateVariableHelp ?	Compatibility of land cover for foraging by pollinator species during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Compatibility of land cover for nesting by pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Habitat suitability of parcel for foraging (unitless) Habitat suitability of pollinator source parcel for nesting (unitless)	Compatibility of land cover for foraging by pollinator species during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Compatibility of land cover for nesting by pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Habitat suitability of parcel for foraging (unitless) Habitat suitability of pollinator source parcel for nesting (unitless)	Compatibility of land cover for foraging by pollinator species during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Compatibility of land cover for nesting by pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Habitat suitability of parcel for foraging (unitless) Habitat suitability of pollinator source parcel for nesting (unitless)	Compatibility of land cover for foraging by pollinator species during floral season (unitless (0-1)) Compatibility of land cover for nesting by pollinator species (unitless (0-1)) Habitat suitability of parcel for foraging (unitless) Habitat suitability of pollinator source parcel for nesting (unitless)

Response

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-338	Run -Watermelon sites	Run - Sunflower sites in 2001	Run - Sunflower sites in 2002
Observed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.observedResponseHelp ?	None	*	*	*
Computed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.computedResponseHelp ?	Pollinator abundance service score (unitless) Pollinator abundance source score (unitless (0-1)) Total pollinator abundance service score (unitless)	Pollinator abundance service score (unitless) Pollinator abundance source score (unitless (0-1)) Total pollinator abundance service score (unitless)	Pollinator abundance service score (unitless) Pollinator abundance source score (unitless (0-1)) Total pollinator abundance service score (unitless)	Pollinator abundance service score (unitless) Pollinator abundance source score (unitless (0-1)) Total pollinator abundance service score (unitless)

US EPA

EcoService Models Library (ESML)

View Runs

: InVEST crop pollination, California, USA (EM-338)