EcoService Models Library (ESML)
Home
Search EMs
My
EMs 
Learn about
ESML
View ESML Data Maploading
Compare EMs
Which comparison is best for me?EM Variables by Variable Role
One quick way to compare ecological models (EMs) is by comparing their variables. Predictor variables show what kinds of influences a model is able to account for, and what kinds of data it requires. Response variables show what information a model is capable of estimating.
This first comparison shows the names (and units) of each EM’s variables, side-by-side, sorted by variable role. Variable roles in ESML are as follows:
- Predictor Variables
- Time- or Space-Varying Variables
- Constants and Parameters
- Intermediate (Computed) Variables
- Response Variables
- Computed Response Variables
- Measured Response Variables
EM Variables by Category
A second way to use variables to compare EMs is by focusing on the kind of information each variable represents. The top-level categories in the ESML Variable Classification Hierarchy are as follows:
- Policy Regarding Use or Management of Ecosystem Resources
- Land Surface (or Water Body Bed) Cover, Use or Substrate
- Human Demographic Data
- Human-Produced Stressor or Enhancer of Ecosystem Goods and Services Production
- Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services
- Non-monetary Indicators of Human Demand, Use or Benefit of Ecosystem Goods and Services
- Monetary Values
Besides understanding model similarities, sorting the variables for each EM by these 7 categories makes it easier to see if the compared models can be linked using similar variables. For example, if one model estimates an ecosystem attribute (in Category 5), such as water clarity, as a response variable, and a second model uses a similar attribute (also in Category 5) as a predictor of recreational use, the two models can potentially be used in tandem. This comparison makes it easier to spot potential model linkages.
All EM Descriptors
This selection allows a more detailed comparison of EMs by model characteristics other than their variables. The 50-or-so EM descriptors for each model are presented, side-by-side, in the following categories:
- EM Identity and Description
- EM Modeling Approach
- EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
- EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system
EM Descriptors by Modeling Concepts
This feature guides the user through the use of the following seven concepts for comparing and selecting EMs:
- Conceptual Model
- Modeling Objective
- Modeling Context
- Potential for Model Linkage
- Feasibility of Model Use
- Model Certainty
- Model Structural Information
Though presented separately, these concepts are interdependent, and information presented under one concept may have relevance to other concepts as well.
Compare Criteria:
Show Criteria
Hide CriteriaEM Identity and Description
EM Identification
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467 
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Divergence in flowering date, Central French Alps | ARIES carbon, Puget Sound Region, USA | InVEST carbon storage and sequestration (v3.2.0) | Decrease in erosion (shoreline), St. Croix, USVI | Visitation to reef dive sites, St. Croix, USVI | Yasso07 v1.0.1, Switzerland | DayCent N2O flux simulation, Ireland | Human well-being index, Pensacola Bay, Florida |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Functional divergence in flowering date, Central French Alps | ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) Carbon Storage and Sequestration, Puget Sound Region, Washington, USA | InVEST v3.2.0 Carbon storage and sequestration | Decrease in erosion (shoreline) by reef, St. Croix, USVI | Visitation to dive sites (reef), St. Croix, USVI | Yasso07 v1.0.1 forest litter decomposition, Switzerland | DayCent simulation N2O flux and climate change, Ireland | Human well-being index (HWBI), Pensacola Bay, Florida |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
EU Biodiversity Action 5 | ARIES | InVEST | US EPA | US EPA | None | None | US EPA |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
260 | 302 | 315 | 335 | 335 | 343 | 358 | 418 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R. | Bagstad, K.J., Villa, F., Batker, D., Harrison-Cox, J., Voigt, B., and Johnson, G.W. | The Natural Capital Project | Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., and L. M. Oliver | Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., and L. M. Oliver | Didion, M., B. Frey, N. Rogiers, and E. Thurig | Abdalla, M., Yeluripati, J., Smith, P., Burke, J., Williams, M. | Yee, S.H., Paulukonis, E., Simmons, C., Russell, M., Fullford, R., Harwell, L., and L.M. Smith |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2011 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 | 2010 | 2021 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services | From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments | Carbon storage and sequestration - InVEST (v3.2.0) | Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI | Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI | Validating tree litter decomposition in the Yasso07 carbon model | Testing DayCent and DNDC model simulations of N2O fluxes and assessing the impacts of climate change on the gas flux and biomass production from a humid pasture | Projecting effects of land use change on human well being through changes in ecosystem services |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published |
|
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Website | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
| Not applicable | http://aries.integratedmodelling.org/ | https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ | Not applicable | Not applicable | http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/yasso-download-and-support | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Sandra Lavorel | Ken Bagstad | The Natural Capital Project | Susan H. Yee | Susan H. Yee |
Markus Didion ?Comment:Tel.: +41 44 7392 427 |
M. Abdalla | Susan Yee |
|
Contact Address
|
Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France | Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center, US Geological Survey | 371 Serra Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-5020 USA | US EPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | US EPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland | Dept. of Botany, School of Natural Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin2, Ireland | Gulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Prntection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA |
|
Contact Email
|
sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr | kjbagstad@usgs.gov | invest@naturalcapitalproject.org | yee.susan@epa.gov | yee.susan@epa.gov | markus.didion@wsl.ch | abdallm@tcd.ie | yee.susan@epa.gov |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
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. Vegetative height and leaf traits such as leaf dry matter content were response traits strongly influenced by land use and abiotic environment, with follow-on effects on several ecosystem properties, and could therefore be used as functional markers of ES." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Functional divergence of flowering date 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." | ABSTRACT: "...new modeling approaches that map and quantify service-specific sources (ecosystem capacity to provide a service), sinks (biophysical or anthropogenic features that deplete or alter service flows), users (user locations and level of demand), and spatial flows can provide a more complete understanding of ecosystem services. Through a case study in Puget Sound, Washington State, USA, we quantify and differentiate between the theoretical or in situ provision of services, i.e., ecosystems’ capacity to supply services, and their actual provision when accounting for the location of beneficiaries and the spatial connections that mediate service flows between people and ecosystems... Using the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) methodology we map service supply, demand, and flow, extending on simpler approaches used by past studies to map service provision and use." AUTHOR'S NOTE: "We quantified carbon sequestration and storage in vegetation and soils using Bayesian models (Bagstad et al. 2011) calibrated with Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Net Primary Productivity (MODIS GPP/NPP Project, http://secure.ntsg.umt. edu/projects/index.php/ID/ca2901a0/fuseaction/prohttp://www.whrc.org/ational Bwww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627)vey Geographic Dahttp://www.geomac.gov/index.shtml)wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627) soils data, respectively. By overlaying fire boundary polygons from the Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination Group (GeoMAC, http://www.geomac.gov/index.shtml) we estimated carbon storage losses caused by wildfire, using fuel consumption coefficients from Spracklen et al. (2009) and carbon pool data from Smith et al. (2006). By incorporating the impacts of land-cover change from urbanization (Bolte and Vache 2010) within carbon models, we quantified resultant changes in carbon storage." | Please note: This ESML entry describes an InVEST model version that was current as of 2015. More recent versions may be available at the InVEST website. ABSTRACT: "Terrestrial ecosystems, which store more carbon than the atmosphere, are vital to influencing carbon dioxide-driven climate change. The InVEST model uses maps of land use and land cover types and data on wood harvest rates, harvested product degradation rates, and stocks in four carbon pools (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, soil, dead organic matter) to estimate the amount of carbon currently stored in a landscape or the amount of carbon sequestered over time. Additional data on the market or social value of sequestered carbon and its annual rate of change, and a discount rate can be used in an optional model that estimates the value of this environmental service to society. Limitations of the model include an oversimplified carbon cycle, an assumed linear change in carbon sequestration over time, and potentially inaccurate discounting rates." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "A fifth optional pool included in the model applies to parcels that produce harvested wood products (HWPs) such as firewood or charcoal or more long-lived products such as house timbers or furniture. Tracking carbon in this pool is useful because it represents the amount of carbon kept from the atmosphere by a given product." | ABSTRACT: "...We investigated and compared a number of existing methods for quantifying ecological integrity, shoreline protection, recreational opportunities, fisheries production, and the potential for natural products discovery from reefs. Methods were applied to mapping potential ecosystem services production around St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall, we found that a number of different methods produced similar predictions." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "A number of methods have been developed for linking biophysical attributes of reef condition, such as reef structural complexity, fish biomass, or species richness, to provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (Principe et al., 2012). We investigated the feasibility of using existing methods and data for mapping production of reef ecosystem goods and services. We applied these methods toward mapping potential ecosystem goods and services production in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)...For each of the five categories of ecosystem services, we chose a suite of models and indices for estimating potential production based on relative ease of implementation, consisting of well-defined parameters, and likely availability of input data, to maximize potential for transferability to other locations. For each method, we assembled the necessary reef condition and environmental data as spatial data layers for St. Croix (Table1). The coastal zone surrounding St. Croix was divided into 10x10 m grid cells, and production functions were applied to quantify ecosystem services provisioning in each grid cell...Shoreline protection as an ecosystem service has been defined in a number of ways including protection from shoreline erosion...and can thus be estimated as % Decrease in erosion due to reef = 1 - (Ho/H)^2.5 where Ho is the attenuated wave height due to the presence of the reef and H is wave height in the absence of the reef." | ABSTRACT: "...We investigated and compared a number of existing methods for quantifying ecological integrity, shoreline protection, recreational opportunities, fisheries production, and the potential for natural products discovery from reefs. Methods were applied to mapping potential ecosystem services production around St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall, we found that a number of different methods produced similar predictions." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "A number of methods have been developed for linking biophysical attributes of reef condition, such as reef structural complexity, fish biomass, or species richness, to provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (Principe et al., 2012). We investigated the feasibility of using existing methods and data for mapping production of reef ecosystem goods and services. We applied these methods toward mapping potential ecosystem goods and services production in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)...For each of the five categories of ecosystem services, we chose a suite of models and indices for estimating potential production based on relative ease of implementation, consisting of well-defined parameters, and likely availability of input data, to maximize potential for transferability to other locations. For each method, we assembled the necessary reef condition and environmental data as spatial data layers for St. Croix (Table1). The coastal zone surrounding St. Croix was divided into 10x10 m grid cells, and production functions were applied to quantify ecosystem services provisioning in each grid cell...A number of recreational activities are associated directly or indirectly with coral reefs including scuba diving, snorkeling, surfing, underwater photography, recreational fishing, wildlife viewing, beach sunbathing and swimming, and beachcombing (Principe et al., 2012)…Pendleton (1994) used field observations of dive sites to model potential impacts on local economies due to loss of dive tourism with reef degradation. A key part of the diver choice model is a fitted model of visitation to dive sites described by Visitation to dive sites = 2.897+0.0701creef -0.133D+0.0417τ where creef is percent coral cover, D is the time in hours to the dive site, which we estimate using distance from reef to shore and assuming a boat speed of 5 knots or 2.57ms-1, and τ is a dummy variable for the presence of interesting topographic features. We interpret τ as dramatic changes in bathymetry, quantified as having a standard deviation in depth among grid cells within 30 m that is greater than the75th percentile across all grid cells. Because our interpretation of topography differed from the original usage of “interesting features”, we also calculated dive site visitation assuming no contribution of topography (τ=0). Unsightly coastal development, an additional but non-significant variable in the original model, was assumed to be zero for St. Croix." | ABSTRACT: "...We examined the validity of the litter decomposition and soil carbon model Yasso07 in Swiss forests based on data on observed decomposition of (i) foliage and fine root litter from sites along a climatic and altitudinal gradient and (ii) of 588 dead trees from 394 plots of the Swiss National Forest Inventory. Our objectives were to (i) examine the effect of the application of three different published Yasso07 parameter sets on simulated decay rate; (ii) analyze the accuracy of Yasso07 for reproducing observed decomposition of litter and dead wood in Swiss forests;…" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Yasso07 (Tuomi et al., 2011a, 2009) is a litter decomposition model to calculate C stocks and stock changes in mineral soil, litter and deadwood. For estimating stocks of organic C in these pools and their temporal dynamics, Yasso07 (Y07) requires information on C inputs from dead organic matter (e.g., foliage and woody material) and climate (temperature, temperature amplitude and precipitation). DOM decomposition is modelled based on the chemical composition of the C input, size of woody parts and climate (Tuomi et al., 2011 a, b, 2009). In Y07 it is assumed that DOM consists of four compound groups with specific mass loss rates. The mass flows between compounds that are either insoluble (N), soluble in ethanol (E), in water (W) or in acid (A) and to a more stable humus compartment (H), as well as the flux out of the five pools (Fig. 1, Table A.1; Liski et al., 2009) are described by a range of parameters (Tuomi et al., 2011a, 2009)." "For this study, we used the Yasso07 release 1.0.1 (cf. project homepage). The Yasso07 Fortran source code was compiled for the Windows7 operating system. The statistical software R (R Core Team, 2013) version 3.0.1 (64 bit) was used for administrating theYasso07 simulations. The decomposition of DOM was simulated with Y07 using the parameter sets P09, P11 and P12 with the purpose of identifying a parameter set that is applicable to conditions in Switzerland. In the simulations we used the value of the maximum a posteriori point estimate (cf. Tuomi et al., 2009) derived from the distribution of parameter values for each set (Table A.1). The simulations were initialized with the C mass contained in (a) one litterbag at the start of the litterbag experiment for foliage and fine root litter (Heim and Frey, 2004) and (b) individual deadwood pieces at the time of the NFI2 for deadwood. The respective mass of C was separated into the four compound groups used by Y07. The simulations were run for the time span of the observed data. The result of the simulation was an annual estimate of the remaining fraction of the initial mass, which could then be compared with observed data." | Simulation models are one of the approaches used to investigate greenhouse gas emissions and potential effects of global warming on terrestrial ecosystems. DayCent which is the daily time-step version of the CENTURY biogeochemical model, and DNDC (the DeNitrification–DeComposition model) were tested against observed nitrous oxide flux data from a field experiment on cut and extensively grazed pasture located at the Teagasc Oak Park Research Centre, Co. Carlow, Ireland. The soil was classified as a free draining sandy clay loam soil with a pH of 7.3 and a mean organic carbon and nitrogen content at 0–20 cm of 38 and 4.4 g kg−1 dry soil, respectively. The aims of this study were to validate DayCent and DNDC models for estimating N2O emissions from fertilized humid pasture, and to investigate the impacts of future climate change on N2O fluxes and biomass production. Measurements of N2O flux were carried out from November 2003 to November 2004 using static chambers. Three climate scenarios, a baseline of measured climatic data from the weather station at Carlow, and high and low temperature sensitivity scenarios predicted by the Community Climate Change Consortium For Ireland (C4I) based on the Hadley Centre Global Climate Model (HadCM3) and the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emission scenario were investigated. DayCent predicted cumulative N2O flux and biomass production under fertilized grass with relative deviations of +38% and (−23%) from the measured, respectively. However, DayCent performs poorly under the control plots, with flux relative deviation of (−57%) from the measured. Comparison between simulated and measured flux suggests that both DayCent model’s response to N fertilizer and simulated background flux need to be adjusted. DNDC overestimated the measured flux with relative deviations of +132 and +258% due to overestimation of the effects of SOC. DayCent, though requiring some calibration for Irish conditions, simulated N2O fluxes more consistently than did DNDC. We used DayCent to estimate future fluxes of N2O from this field. No significant differences were found between cumulative N2O flux under climate change and baseline conditions. However, above-ground grass biomass was significantly increased from the baseline of 33 t ha−1 to 45 (+34%) and 50 (+48%) t dry matter ha−1 for the low and high temperature sensitivity scenario respectively. The increase in above-ground grass biomass was mainly due to the overall effects of high precipitation, temperature and CO2 concentration. Our results indicate that because of high N demand by the vigorously growing grass, cumulative N2O flux is not projected to increase significantly under climate change, unless more N is applied. This was observed for both the high and low temperature sensitivity scenarios. | ABSTRACT: "Changing patterns of land use, temperature, and precipitation are expected to impact ecosystem se1vices, including water quality and quantity, buffering of extreme events, soil quality, and biodiversity. Scenario ana lyses that link such impacts on ecosystem se1vices to human well-being may be valuable in anticipating potential consequences of change that are meaningful to people living in a community. Ecosystem se1vices provide munerous benefits to community well-being, including living standards, health, cultural fulfillment, education, and connection to nature. Yet assessments of impacts of ecosystem se1vices on human well-being have largely focused on human health or moneta1y benefits (e.g. market values). This study applies a human well-being modeling framework to demonsffate the potential impacts of alternative land use scenarios on multi-faceted components of human well-being through changes in ecosystem se1vices (i.e., ecological benefits functions). The modeling framework quantitatively defines these relationships in a way that can be used to project the influence of ecosystem se1vice flows on indicators of human well-being, alongside social se1vice flows and economic se1vice flows. Land use changes are linked to changing indicators of ecosystem se1vices through the application of ecological production functions. The approach is demonstrated for two future land use scenarios in a Florida watershed, representing different degrees of population growth and environmental resource protection. Increasing rates of land development were almost universally associated with declines in ecosystem se1vices indicators and associated indicators of well-being, as natural ecosystems were replaced by impe1vious surfaces that depleted the ability of ecosystems to buffer air pollutants, provide habitat for biodiversity, and retain rainwater. Scenarios with increases in indicators of ecosystem se1vices, however, did not necessarily translate into increases in indicators of well-being, due to cova1ying changes in social and economic se1vices indicators. The approach is broadly ffansferable to other communities or decision scenarios and se1ves to illustrate the potential impacts of changing land use on ecosystem se1vices and human well-being. " |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | climate change | None identified |
|
Biophysical Context
|
Elevations ranging from 1552 m to 2442 m, on predominantly south-facing slopes | No additional description provided | Not applicable | No additional description provided | No additional description provided | Different forest types dominated by Norway Spruce (Picea abies), European Beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Sweet Chestnut (Castanea sativa). | Agricultural field, Ann rainfall 824mm, mean air temp 9.4°C | N/A |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented | Optional future scenarios for changed LULC and wood harvest | No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented |
No scenarios presented ?Comment:Yasso model simulations were run using 3 different parameter sets from: 1) Tuomi et al., 2009 (P09), 2) Tuomi et al., 2011 (P11), and 3) Rantakari et al., 2012 (P12). |
air temperature, precipitation, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations | N/A |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application | Method Only | Method + Application | Method + Application |
Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs ?Comment:Yasso model simulations were run using 3 different parameter sets from: 1) Tuomi et al., 2009 (P09), 2) Tuomi et al., 2011 (P11), and 3) Rantakari et al., 2012 (P12). |
Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | Application of existing model | Application of existing model | Application of existing model | Application of existing model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-260 | Doc-269 | Doc-303 | Doc-305 | Doc-309 | Doc-335 | None | Doc-342 | Doc-344 | None | None |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-65 | EM-66 | EM-68 | EM-69 | EM-70 | EM-71 | EM-80 | EM-81 | EM-82 | EM-83 | None | EM-349 | EM-447 | EM-448 | None | EM-466 | EM-469 | EM-480 | EM-485 | EM-598 | EM-882 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
2007-2008 | 1950-2007 | Not applicable | 2006-2007, 2010 | 2006-2007, 2010 | 1993-2013 | 1961-1990 | 2010 |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-dependent | time-stationary |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | Not applicable | future time | both | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable | discrete | discrete | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1 | 1 | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Year | Not applicable | Not applicable | Year | Day | Not applicable |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Not applicable | Physiographic or ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Geopolitical | Point or points | Geopolitical |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Central French Alps | Puget Sound Region | Not applicable | Coastal zone surrounding St. Croix | Coastal zone surrounding St. Croix | Switzerland | Oak Park Research centre | Pensacola Bay Region |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
10-100 km^2 | 10,000-100,000 km^2 | Not applicable | 100-1000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | 10,000-100,000 km^2 | 1-10 ha | 100-1000 km^2 |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some 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) |
|
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
20 m x 20 m | 200m x 200m | application specific | 10 m x 10 m | 10 m x 10 m | 5 sites | Not applicable | county |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Numeric | Numeric | Analytic |
|
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | stochastic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | stochastic | deterministic | deterministic |
|
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model Checking Procedures Used
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | Yes | Not applicable | Yes | Yes | No | No | Unclear |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
Yes | No | Not applicable | No | No | No |
Yes ?Comment:for N2O fluxes |
Not applicable |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None | None | None |
|
None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | No | No | No | No | Yes |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | No | No | No | No | Yes |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Unclear |
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
Location of EM Application
Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])
em.detail.relationToSpaceTerrestrialHelp
?
| EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
|
None | None | None |
|
|
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
| None | None | None |
|
|
None | None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
45.05 | 48 | -9999 | 17.73 | 17.73 | 46.82 | 52.86 | 30.05 |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
6.4 | -123 | -9999 | -64.77 | -64.77 | 8.23 | 6.54 | -87.61 |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | Not applicable | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | None provided | WGS84 |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Provided | Estimated | Not applicable | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Provided | Estimated |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Agroecosystems | Grasslands | Inland Wetlands | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Forests | Atmosphere | Not applicable | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Forests | Agroecosystems | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows | Terrestrial environment surrounding a large estuary | Terrestrial environments, but not specified for methods | Coral reefs | Coral reefs | forests | farm pasture | Mixed |
|
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Ecological scale is coarser than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Not applicable | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class |
Scale and taxa of organisms modeled
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
em.detail.nameOfOrgsOrGroupsHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Community | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Community | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
| None Available | None Available | None Available | None Available | 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.detail.cicesHelp
?
| EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
| 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>
fegs1Help
?
(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)
fegs2Help
?
| EM-79 | EM-317 | EM-374 | EM-449 | EM-457 |
EM-467
|
EM-593
|
EM-880
|
| None | None | None |
|
|
None |
|
|