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-12
EM-66
EM-81
EM-91
EM-465
EM-541

Add EM to Compare:

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	Evoland v3.5 (bounded growth), Eugene, OR, USA	Litter biomass production, Central French Alps	Cultural ES and plant traits, Central French Alps	RHyME2, Upper Mississippi River basin, USA	Pharmaceutical product potential, St. Croix, USVI	InVEST fisheries, lobster, South Africa
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	Evoland v3.5 (with urban growth boundaries), Eugene, OR, USA	Litter biomass production, Central French Alps	Cultural ecosystem service estimated from plant functional traits, Central French Alps	RHyME2 (Regional Hydrologic Modeling for Environmental Evaluation), Upper Mississippi River basin, USA	Relative pharmaceutical product potential (on reef), St. Croix, USVI	Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs Fisheries, rock lobster, South Africa
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	Envision	EU Biodiversity Action 5	EU Biodiversity Action 5	US EPA	US EPA	InVEST
EM Source Document ID	47 ? Comment: Doc 183 is a secondary source for the Evoland model.	260	260	123	335	349 ? Comment: Supplemented with the InVEST Users Guide fisheries.
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	Guzy, M. R., Smith, C. L. , Bolte, J. P., Hulse, D. W. and Gregory, S. V.	Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R.	Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R.	Tran, L. T., O’Neill, R. V., Smith, E. R., Bruins, R. J. F. and Harden, C.	Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., and L. M. Oliver	Ward, Michelle, Hugh Possingham, Johathan R. Rhodes, Peter Mumby
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2008	2011	2011	2013	2014	2018
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	Policy research using agent-based modeling to assess future impacts of urban expansion into farmlands and forests	Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services	Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services	Application of hierarchy theory to cross-scale hydrologic modeling of nutrient loads	Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI	Food, money and lobsters: Valuing ecosystem services to align environmental management with Sustainable Development Goals
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
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript

Software and Access

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	http://evoland.bioe.orst.edu/ ? Comment: Software is likely available.	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	Michael R. Guzy	Sandra Lavorel	Sandra Lavorel	Liem Tran	Susan H. Yee	Michelle Ward
Contact Address	Oregon State University, Dept. of Biological and Ecological Engineering	Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France	Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France	Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, 1000 Phillip Fulmer Way, Knoxville, TN 37996-0925, USA	US EPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA	ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Contact Email	Not reported	sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr	sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr	ltran1@utk.edu	yee.susan@epa.gov	m.ward@uq.edu.au

EM Description

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Summary Description em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp ?	Note: A more recent version of this model exists. See Related EMs below for links to related models/applications. ABSTRACT: "Spatially explicit agent-based models can represent the changes in resilience and ecological services that result from different land-use policies…This type of analysis generates ensembles of alternate plausible representations of future system conditions. User expertise steers interactive, stepwise system exploration toward inductive reasoning about potential changes to the system. In this study, we develop understanding of the potential alternative futures for a social-ecological system by way of successive simulations that test variations in the types and numbers of policies. The model addresses the agricultural-urban interface and the preservation of ecosystem services. The landscape analyzed is at the junction of the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers adjacent to the cities of Eugene and Springfield in Lane County, Oregon." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Two general scenarios for urban expansion were created to set the bounds on what might be possible for the McKenzie-Willamette study area. One scenario, fish conservation, tried to accommodate urban expansion, but gave the most weight to policies that would produce resilience and ecosystem services to restore threatened fish populations. The other scenario, unconstrained development, reversed the weighting. The 35 policies in the fish conservation scenario are designed to maintain urban growth boundaries (UGB), accommodate human population growth through increased urban densities, promote land conservation through best-conservation practices on agricultural and forest lands, and make rural land-use conversions that benefit fish. In the unconstrained development scenario, 13 policies are mainly concerned with allowing urban expansion in locations desired by landowners. Urban expansion in this scenario was not constrained by the extent of the UGB, and the policies are not intended to create conservation land uses."	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 (e.g., litter biomass production), and could therefore be used as functional markers of ES." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Variation in litter biomass production was modelled using…traits community-weighted mean (CWM) and functional divergence (FD) and abiotic variables (continuous variables; trait + abiotic) following Diaz et al. (2007). …The comparison between this model and the land-use alone model identifies the need for site-based information beyond a land use or land cover proxy…Litter biomass production for each pixel was calculated and mapped using model estimates...This step is critically novel as compared to a direct application of the model by Diaz et al. (2007) in that we explicitly modelled the responses of trait community-weighted means and functional divergences to environment prior to evaluating their effects on litter mass. Such an approach is the key to the explicit representation of functional variation across the landscape, as opposed to the use of unique trait values within each land use."	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: "The Cultural ecosystem service map was a simple sum of maps for relevant Ecosystem Properties (produced in related EMs) after scaling to a 0–100 baseline and trimming outliers to the 5–95% quantiles (Venables&Ripley 2002)…Coefficients used for the summing of individual ecosystem properties to cultural ecosystem services were based on stakeholders’ perceptions, given positive or negative contributions."	ABSTRACT: "We describe a framework called Regional Hydrologic Modeling for Environmental Evaluation (RHyME2) for hydrologic modeling across scales. Rooted from hierarchy theory, RHyME2 acknowledges the rate-based hierarchical structure of hydrological systems. Operationally, hierarchical constraints are accounted for and explicitly described in models put together into RHyME2. We illustrate RHyME2with a two-module model to quantify annual nutrient loads in stream networks and watersheds at regional and subregional levels. High values of R2 (>0.95) and the Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient (>0.85) and a systematic connection between the two modules show that the hierarchy theory-based RHyME2 framework can be used effectively for developing and connecting hydrologic models to analyze the dynamics of hydrologic systems." Two EMs will be entered in EPF-Library: 1. Regional scale module (Upper Mississippi River Basin) - this entry 2. Subregional scale module (St. Croix River Basin)	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…When data on sponge diversity is unavailable, benthic habitat coverages may be used to estimate relative magnitudes of sponge diversity and abundance as an indicator of potential pharmaceutical production (Mumby et al., 2008). For each grid cell, we estimated the contribution of coral reefs to potential pharmaceutical production as the overall weighted average of relative magnitudes of contribution across habitat types within that grid cell: Pharmaceutical product potential = ΣiciMi where ci is the fraction of area within each grid cell for each habitat type i (dense, medium dense, or sparse seagrass, mangroves, sand, macroalgae, A. palmata, Montastraea reef, patch reef, and dense or sparse gorgonians), and Mi is the relative magnitude of sponge diversity associated with each habitat."	AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Here we develop a method for assessing future scenarios of environmental management change that improve coastal ecosystem services and thereby, support the success of the SDGs. We illustrate application of the method using a case study of South Africa’s West Coast Rock Lobster fishery within the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) Marine Protected Area...We calculated the retrospective and current value of the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery using published and unpublished data from various sources and combined the market worth of landed lobster from recreational fishers, small-scale fisheries (SSF), large-scale fisheries (LSF) and poachers. Then using the InVEST tool, we combined data to build scenarios that describe possible futures for the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery (see Table 1). The first scenario, entitled ‘Business as Usual’ (BAU), takes the current situation and most up-to-date data to model the future if harvest continues at the existing rate. The second scenario is entitled ‘Redirect the Poachers’ (RP), which attempts to model implementation of strict management, whereby poaching is minimised from the Marine Protected Area and other economic and nutritional sources are made available through government initiatives. The third scenario, entitled ‘Large Scale Cutbacks’ (LSC), excludes large-scale fisheries from harvesting West Coast Rock Lobster within the TMNP Marine Protected Area."
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	Authors Description: " By policy, we mean land management options that span the domains of zoning, agricultural and forest production, environmental protection, and urban development, including the associated regulations, laws, and practices. The policies we used in our SES simulations include urban containment policies…We also used policies modeled on agricultural practices that affect ecoystem services and capital…"	None identified	None identified	Not reported	None identified	Future rock lobster fisheries management
Biophysical Context	No additional description provided	Elevation ranges from 1552 to 2442 m, on predominately south-facing slopes	Elevations ranging from 1552 m to 2442 m, on predominantly south-facing slopes	No additional description provided	No additional description provided	No additional description provided
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	Five scenarios that include urban growth boundaries and various combinations of unconstrainted development, fish conservation, agriculture and forest reserves. ? Comment: Additional alternatives included adding agricultural and forest reserves, and adding or removing urban growth boundaries to the three main scenarios.	No scenarios presented	No scenarios presented	No scenarios presented	No scenarios presented	Fisheries exploitation; fishing vulnerability (of age classes)

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method + Application	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	New or revised model	Application of existing 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-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	Doc-47 \| Doc-313 \| Doc-314 ? Comment: Doc 183 is a secondary source for the Evoland model.	Doc-260	None	Doc-123	None	None
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	EM-333 \| EM-369	EM-65 \| EM-68 \| EM-69 \| EM-70 \| EM-71 \| EM-79 \| EM-80 \| EM-81 \| EM-82 \| EM-83	EM-65 \| EM-66 \| EM-68 \| EM-69 \| EM-70 \| EM-71 \| EM-79 \| EM-80 \| EM-82 \| EM-83	None	None	None

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	1990-2050	Not reported	Not reported	1987-1997	2006-2007, 2010	1986-2115
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	time-dependent	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-dependent
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	future time	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	future time
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	discrete	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	discrete
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	2	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	1
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	Year	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Year

EM Spatial Extent

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Geopolitical	Physiographic or Ecological	Physiographic or Ecological	Watershed/Catchment/HUC	Physiographic or ecological	Geopolitical
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	Junction of McKenzie and Willamette Rivers, adjacent to the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane Co., Oregon, USA	Central French Alps	Central French Alps	Upper Mississippi River basin; St. Croix River Watershed	Coastal zone surrounding St. Croix	Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	10-100 km^2	10-100 km^2	10-100 km^2	100,000-1,000,000 km^2	100-1000 km^2	100-1000 km^2

Spatial Distribution of Computations

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	spatially distributed (in at least some cases) ? Comment: Spatial grain for computations is comprised of 16,005 polygons of various size covering 7091 ha.	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)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	area, for pixel or radial feature	area, for pixel or radial feature	area, for pixel or radial feature	NHDplus v1	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	varies	20 m x 20 m	20 m x 20 m	NHDplus v1	10 m x 10 m	Not applicable

EM Structure and Computation Approach

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	Numeric	Analytic	Analytic	Numeric	Analytic	Numeric
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	stochastic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	Other or unclear (comment) ? Comment: Agent based modeling results in response indices.	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-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	Unclear	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	None	Adjusted R \| 61.2 \| Not applicable	None	R^2 \| 0.923 \| none Mean Square Error \| 25.1 \| %	None	None
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes ? Comment: A validation analysis was carried out running the model using data from 1880 to 2001, and then comparing the output for the adult population with the 2001 published data.
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	No	No	No
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	No ? Comment: Sensitivity analysis performed for agent values only.	No	No	No ? Comment: Some model coefficients serve, by their magnitude, to indicate the proportional impact on the final result of variation in the parameters they modify.	No	No
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	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-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
North America United States Oregon	Europe France	Europe France	North America United States Indiana Illinois Missouri South Dakota Minnesota Idaho Wisconsin	None	None

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

EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
None	None	None	None	Tropical Atlantic West Tropical Atlantic Tropical Northwestern Atlantic Eastern Caribbean	Temperate South Africa South Africa Benguela Namaqua

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	44.11	45.05	45.05	42.5	17.73	-34.18
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-123.09	6.4	6.4	-90.63	-64.77	18.35
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Estimated	Provided	Provided	Estimated	Estimated	Provided

Environments and Scales Modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Rivers and Streams \| Forests \| Agroecosystems \| Created Greenspace	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) \| Rivers and Streams \| Inland Wetlands \| Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) \| Agroecosystems \| Atmosphere	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Agricultural-urban interface at river junction	Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows	Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows.	None	Coral reefs	Rocky coast, mixed coast, sandy coast, rocky inshore, sandy inshore, rocky shelf and unconsolidated shelf
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Not applicable	Ecological scale is coarser than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecosystem	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-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Not applicable	Community	Community	Not applicable	Guild or Assemblage	Individual or population, within a species

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
other Fish Species Red-Legged Frog Osprey Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Little Brown Myotis Belted Kingfisher Wood Duck Northern River Otter Great Blue Heron Roughskin Newt Pacific Water Shrew American Beaver Mink Western Pond Turtle Killdeer Northwestern Salamander	None Available	None Available	None Available	other Sponges	Species West Coast Rock Lobster (Jasus lalandii)

EnviroAtlas URL

EM-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Dasymetric Allocation of Population, GAP Ecological Systems, The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Percent Natural Land Cover in Stream Buffer , Hectares of Vegetable Crops, Employment Rate	GAP Ecological Systems	GAP Ecological Systems	The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHD PlusV2), Average Annual Precipitation, Total Annual Reduced Nitrogen Deposition, Total Annual Nitrogen Deposition, The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)	None Available	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-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats	None	[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 Intellectual and representative interactions Aesthetic Heritage, cultural	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Water conditions Chemical condition of freshwaters	[Ecosystem] Provisioning Materials Biomass Fibres and other materials from plants, algae and animals for direct use or processing	[Ecosystem] Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Wild animals and their outputs

<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-12	EM-66	EM-81	EM-91	EM-465	EM-541
Forests (21) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator Agroecosystems (22) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator	None	None	None	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Fauna (4) Invertebrates Stock Indicator	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Fauna (4) Invertebrates Stock 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:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

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

Comment:

EM Modeling Approach

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

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

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

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

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)