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-604 |
EM-605 
|
EM-697
|
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Chinook salmon value (household), Yaquina Bay, OR | VELMA v2.0, Ohio, USA | Floral resources on landfill sites, United Kingdom |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Economic value of Chinook salmon per household method, Yaquina Bay, OR | Visualizing Ecosystems for Land Management Assessments (VELMA) v2.0, Shayler Crossing watershed, Ohio, USA | Floral resources on landfill sites, East Midlands, United Kingdom |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
US EPA | US EPA | None |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
324 |
359 ?Comment:Document #366 is a supporting document for this EM. McKane et al. 2014, VELMA Version 2.0 User Manual and Technical Documentation. |
389 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Stephen J. Jordan, Timothy O'Higgins and John A. Dittmar | Hoghooghi, N., H. E. Golden, B. P. Bledsoe, B. L. Barnhart, A. F. Brookes, K. S. Djang, J. J. Halama, R. B. McKane, C. T. Nietch, and P. P. Pettus | Tarrant S., J. Ollerton, M. L Rahman, J. Tarrant, and D. McCollin |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2012 | 2018 | 2013 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Ecosystem Services of Coastal Habitats and Fisheries: Multiscale Ecological and Economic Models in Support of Ecosystem-Based Management | Cumulative effects of low impact development on watershed hydrology in a mixed land-cover system | Grassland restoration on landfill sites in the East Midlands, United Kingdom: An evaluation of floral resources and pollinating insects |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
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 |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
| Not applicable | https://www.epa.gov/water-research/visualizing-ecosystem-land-management-assessments-velma-model-20 | Not applicable | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Stephen Jordan | Heather Golden | Sam Tarrant |
|
Contact Address
|
U.S. EPA, Gulf Ecology Div., 1 Sabine Island Dr., Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA | RSPB UK Headquarters, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, U.K. |
|
Contact Email
|
jordan.steve@epa.gov | Golden.Heather@epa.gov | sam.tarrant@rspb.org.uk |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
ABSTRACT:"Critical habitats for fish and wildlife are often small patches in landscapes, e.g., aquatic vegetation beds, reefs, isolated ponds and wetlands, remnant old-growth forests, etc., yet the same animal populations that depend on these patches for reproduction or survival can be extensive, ranging over large regions, even continents or major ocean basins. Whereas the ecological production functions that support these populations can be measured only at fine geographic scales and over brief periods of time, the ecosystem services (benefits that ecosystems convey to humans by supporting food production, water and air purification, recreational, esthetic, and cultural amenities, etc.) are delivered over extensive scales of space and time. These scale mismatches are particularly important for quantifying the economic values of ecosystem services. Examples can be seen in fish, shellfish, game, and bird populations. Moreover, there can be wide-scale mismatches in management regimes, e.g., coastal fisheries management versus habitat management in the coastal zone. We present concepts and case studies linking the production functions (contributions to recruitment) of critical habitats to commercial and recreational fishery values by combining site specific research data with spatial analysis and population models. We present examples illustrating various spatial scales of analysis, with indicators of economic value, for recreational Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon fisheries in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon) and commercial blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and penaeid shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. | ABSTRACT: "Low Impact Development (LID) is an alternative to conventional urban stormwater management practices, which aims at mitigating the impacts of urbanization on water quantity and quality. Plot and local scale studies provide evidence of LID effectiveness; however, little is known about the overall watershed scale influence of LID practices. This is particularly true in watersheds with a land cover that is more diverse than that of urban or suburban classifications alone. We address this watershed-scale gap by assessing the effects of three common LID practices (rain gardens, permeable pavement, and riparian buffers) on the hydrology of a 0.94 km2 mixed land cover watershed. We used a spatially-explicit ecohydrological model, called Visualizing Ecosystems for Land Management Assessments (VELMA), to compare changes in watershed hydrologic responses before and after the implementation of LID practices. For the LID scenarios, we examined different spatial configurations, using 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% implementation extents, to convert sidewalks into rain gardens, and parking lots and driveways into permeable pavement. We further applied 20 m and 40 m riparian buffers along streams that were adjacent to agricultural land cover…" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "VELMA’s modeling domain is a three-dimensional matrix that includes information regarding surface topography, land use, and four soil layers. VELMA uses a distributed soil column framework to model the lateral and vertical movement of water and nutrients through the four soil layers. A soil water balance is solved for each layer. The soil column model is placed within a watershed framework to create a spatially distributed model applicable to watersheds (Figure 2, shown here with LID practices). Adjacent soil columns interact through down-gradient water transport. Water entering each pixel (via precipitation or flow from an adjacent pixel) can either first infiltrate into the implemented LID and the top soil layer, and then to the downslope pixel, or continue its downslope movement as the lateral surface flow. Surface and subsurface lateral flow are routed using a multiple flow direction method, as described in Abdelnour et al. [21]. A detailed description of the processes and equations can be found in McKane et al. [32], Abdelnour et al. [21], Abdelnour et al. [40]." | ABSTRACT: "...Restored landfill sites are a significant potential reserve of semi-natural habitat, so their conservation value for supporting populations of pollinating insects was here examined by assessing whether the plant and pollinator assemblages of restored landfill sites are comparable to reference sites of existing wildlife value. Floral characteristics of the vegetation and the species richness and abundance of flower-visiting insect assemblages were compared between nine pairs of restored landfill sites and reference sites in the East Midlands of the United Kingdom, using standardized methods over two field seasons. …" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "The selection criteria for the landfill sites were greater than or equal to 50% of the site restored (to avoid undue influence from ongoing landfilling operations), greater than or equal to 0.5 ha in area and restored for greater than or equal to 4 years to allow establishment of vegetation. Comparison reference sites were the closest grassland sites of recognized nature conservation value, being designated as either Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)…All sites were surveyed three times each during the fieldwork season, in Spring, Summer, and Autumn. Paired sites were sampled on consecutive days whenever weather conditions permitted to reduce temporal bias. Standardized plant surveys were used (Dicks et al. 2002; Potts et al. 2006). Transects (100 × 2m) were centered from the approximate middle of the site and orientated using randomized bearing tables. All flowering plants were identified to species level… A “floral cover” method to represent available floral resources was used which combines floral abundance with inflorescence size. Mean area of the floral unit from above was measured for each flowering plant species and then multiplied by their frequencies." "Insect pollinated flowering plant species composition and floral abundance between sites by type were represented by non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS)...This method is sensitive to showing outliers and the distance between points shows the relative similarity (McCune & Grace 2002; Ollerton et al. 2009)." (This data is not entered into ESML) |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | None identified |
|
Biophysical Context
|
Yaquina Bay estuary | The Shayler Crossing (SHC) watershed is a subwatershed of the East Fork Little Miami River Watershed in southwest Ohio, USA and falls within the Till Plains region of the Central Lowland physiographic province. The Till Plains region is a topographically young and extensive flat plain, with many areas remaining undissected by even the smallest stream. The bedrock is buried under a mantle of glacial drift 3–15 m thick. The Digital Elevation Model (DEM) has a maximum value of ~269 m (North American_1983 datum) within the watershed boundary (Figure 1). The soils are primarily the Avonburg and Rossmoyne series, with high silty clay loam content and poor to moderate infiltration. Average annual precipitation for the period, 1990 through 2011, was 1097.4 _ 173.5 mm. Average annual air temperature for the same period was 12 _C Mixed land cover suburban watershed. The primary land uses consist of 64.1% urban or developed area (including 37% lawn, 12% building, 6.5% street, 6.4% sidewalk, and 2.1% parking lot and driveway), 23% agriculture, and 13% deciduous forest. Total imperviousness covers approximately 27% of the watershed area. | No additional description provided |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | Three types of Low Impact Development (LID) practices (rain gardens, permeable pavements, forested riparian buffers) applied a different conversion levels. | No scenarios presented |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | 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 |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-324 | Doc-13 | Doc-366 | None |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-603 | EM-397 | EM-375 | EM-377 | EM-378 | EM-884 | EM-883 | EM-887 | EM-709 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
2003-2008 | Jan 1, 2009 to Dec 31, 2011 | 2007-2008 |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | past time | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Day | Not applicable |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Geopolitical | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis) |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Pacific Northwest | Shayler Crossing watershed, a subwatershed of the East Fork Little Miami River Watershed | East Midlands |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
>1,000,000 km^2 | 10-100 ha | 1000-10,000 km^2. |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
|
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 10m x 10m | multiple unrelated locations |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Numeric | Analytic |
|
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
|
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
Model Checking Procedures Used
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | Yes | Not applicable |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
No |
Yes ?Comment:Goodness of fit for calibrated (2009-2010) and observed streamflow. |
Not applicable |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
None | None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
Yes | Yes | Not applicable |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
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.detail.relationToSpaceTerrestrialHelp
?
| EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
|
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
44.62 | 39.19 | 52.22 |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
-124.02 | -84.29 | -0.91 |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Estimated | Provided | Estimated |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Ground Water | Forests | Agroecosystems | Created Greenspace | Created Greenspace | Grasslands |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Yaquina Bay estuary and ocean | Mixed land cover suburban watershed | restored landfills and grasslands |
|
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class |
Scale and taxa of organisms modeled
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
em.detail.nameOfOrgsOrGroupsHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Other (multiple scales) | Not applicable | Individual or population, within a species |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
None Available |
|
EnviroAtlas URL
| EM-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
| Dasymetric Allocation of Population | Average Annual Precipitation, Average Annual Daily Potential Wind Energy | GAP Ecological Systems |
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-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
|
|
<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-604 |
EM-605
|
EM-697
|
|
|
None |