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-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709 
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
EnviroAtlas - Natural biological nitrogen fixation | N removal by wetland restoration, Midwest, USA | Pollinators on landfill sites, United Kingdom | Wild bees over 26 yrs of restored prairie, IL, USA | Brown-headed cowbird abundance, Piedmont, USA |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
US EPA EnviroAtlas - BNF (Natural biological nitrogen fixation), USA | Nitrate removal by potential wetland restoration, Mississippi River subbasins, USA | Pollinating insects on landfill sites, East Midlands, United Kingdon | Wild bee community change over a 26 year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie, IL, USA | Brown-headed cowbird abundance, Piedmont ecoregion, USA |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
US EPA | EnviroAtlas | None | None | None | None |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
262 ?Comment:EnviroAtlas maps BNF based on a correlation with AET modeled by Cleveland et al. 1999, and modified by land use (% natural vs. ag/developed) within each HUC. AET was modeled using climate and land use parameters (equation from Sanford and Selnick 2013). For full citations of these related models, see below, "Document ID for related EM. |
370 ?Comment:Final project report to U.S. Department of Agriculture; Project number: IOW06682. December 2006. |
389 | 401 | 405 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
US EPA Office of Research and Development - National Exposure Research Laboratory | Crumpton, W. G., G. A. Stenback, B. A. Miller, and M. J. Helmers | Tarrant S., J. Ollerton, M. L Rahman, J. Tarrant, and D. McCollin | Griffin, S. R, B. Bruninga-Socolar, M. A. Kerr, J. Gibbs and R. Winfree | Riffel, S., Scognamillo, D., and L. W. Burger |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2013 | 2006 | 2013 | 2017 | 2008 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
EnviroAtlas - National | Potential benefits of wetland filters for tile drainage systems: Impact on nitrate loads to Mississippi River subbasins | Grassland restoration on landfill sites in the East Midlands, United Kingdom: An evaluation of floral resources and pollinating insects | Wild bee community change over a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie | Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on northern bobwhite and grassland birds |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
Peer reviewed and published | Neither peer reviewed nor published (explain in Comment) | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published |
|
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published on US EPA EnviroAtlas website | Published report | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
| https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
EnviroAtlas Team ?Comment:Additional contact: Jana Compton, EPA |
William G. Crumpton | Sam Tarrant | Sean R. Griffin | Sam Riffell |
|
Contact Address
|
Not reported | Dept. of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 | RSPB UK Headquarters, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, U.K. | Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, U.S.A. | Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA |
|
Contact Email
|
enviroatlas@epa.gov | crumpton@iastate.edu | sam.tarrant@rspb.org.uk | srgriffin108@gmail.com | sriffell@cfr.msstate.edu |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
DATA FACT SHEET: "This EnviroAtlas national map displays the rate of biological nitrogen (N) fixation (BNF) in natural/semi-natural ecosystems within each watershed (12-digit HUC) in the conterminous United States (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) for the year 2006. These data are based on the modeled relationship of BNF with actual evapotranspiration (AET) in natural/semi-natural ecosystems. The mean rate of BNF is for the 12-digit HUC, not to natural/semi-natural lands within the HUC." "BNF in natural/semi-natural ecosystems was estimated using a correlation with actual evapotranspiration (AET). This correlation is based on a global meta-analysis of BNF in natural/semi-natural ecosystems. AET estimates for 2006 were calculated using a regression equation describing the correlation of AET with climate and land use/land cover variables in the conterminous US. Data describing annual average minimum and maximum daily temperatures and total precipitation at the 2.5 arcmin (~4 km) scale for 2006 were acquired from the PRISM climate dataset. The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2006 was acquired from the USGS at the scale of 30 x 30 m. BNF in natural/semi-natural ecosystems within individual 12-digit HUCs was modeled with an equation describing the statistical relationship between BNF (kg N ha-1 yr-1) and actual evapotranspiration (AET; cm yr–1) and scaled to the proportion of non-developed and non-agricultural land in the 12-digit HUC." EnviroAtlas maps BNF based on a correlation with AET modeled by Cleveland et al. 1999, and modified by land use (% natural vs. ag/developed) within each HUC. AET was modeled using climate and land use parameters (equation from Sanford and Selnick 2013). For full citations of these related models, see below, "Document ID for related EM." | ABSTRACT: "The primary objective of this project was to estimate the nitrate reduction that could be achieved using restored wetlands as nitrogen sinks in tile-drained regions of the upper Mississippi River (UMR) and Ohio River basins. This report provides an assessment of nitrate concentrations and loads across the UMR and Ohio River basins and the mass reduction of nitrate loading that could be achieved using wetlands to intercept nonpoint source nitrate loads. Nitrate concentration and stream discharge data were used to calculate stream nitrate loading and annual flow-weighted average (FWA) nitrate concentrations and to develop a model of FWA nitrate concentration based on land use. Land use accounts for 90% of the variation among stations in long term FWA nitrate concentrations and was used to estimate FWA nitrate concentrations for a 100 ha grid across the UMR and Ohio River basins. Annual water yield for grid cells was estimated by interpolating over selected USGS monitoring station water yields across the UMR and Ohio River basins. For 1990 to 1999, mass nitrate export from each grid area was estimated as the product of the FWA nitrate concentration, water yield and grid area. To estimate potential nitrate removal by wetlands across the same grid area, mass balance simulations were used to estimate percent nitrate reduction for hypothetical wetland sites distributed across the UMR and Ohio River basins. Nitrate reduction was estimated using a temperature dependent, area-based, first order model. Model inputs included local temperature from the National Climatic Data Center and water yield estimated from USGS stream flow data. Results were used to develop a nonlinear model for percent nitrate removal as a function of hydraulic loading rate (HLR) and temperature. Mass nitrate removal for potential wetland restorations distributed across the UMR and Ohio River basin was estimated based on the expected mass load and the predicted percent removal. Similar functions explained most of the variability in per cent and mass removal reported for field scale experimental wetlands in the UMR and Ohio River basins. Results suggest that a 30% reduction in nitrate load from the UMR and Ohio River basins could be achieved using 210,000-450,000 ha of wetlands targeted on the highest nitrate contributing areas." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Percent nitrate removal was estimated based on HLR functions (Figure 19) spanning a 3 fold range in loss rate coefficient (Crumpton 2001) and encompassing the observed performance reported for wetlands in the UMR and Ohio River basins (Table 2, Figure 7). The nitrate load was multiplied by the expected percent nitrate removal to estimate the mass removal. This procedure was repeated for each restoration scenario each year in the simulation period (1990 to 1999)… for a scenario with a wetland/watershed area ratio of 2%. These results are based on the assumption that the FWA nitrate concentration versus percent row crop r | 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…In the first year of study, plants in flower and flower visitors were surveyed using the same transects as for the floral resources surveys. The transect was left undisturbed for 20 minutes following the initial plant survey to allow the flower visitors to return. Each transect was surveyed at a rate of approximately 3m/minute for 30 minutes. All insects observed to touch the sexual parts of flowers were either captured using a butterfly net and transferred into individually labeled specimen jars, or directly captured into the jars. After the survey was completed, those insects that could be identified in the field were recorded and released. The flower-visitor surveys were conducted in the morning, within 1 hour of midday, and in the afternoon to sample those insects active at different times. Insects that could not be identified in the field were collected as voucher specimens for later identification. Identifications were verified using reference collections and by taxon specialists. Relatively low capture rates in the first year led to methods being altered in the second year when surveying followed a spiral pattern from a randomly determined point on the sites, at a standard pace of 10 m/minute for 30 minutes, following Nielsen and Bascompte (2007) and Kalikhman (2007). Given a 2-m wide transect, an area of approximately 600m2 was sampled in each | ABSTRACT: "Restoration efforts often focus on plants, but additionally require the establishment and long-term persistence of diverse groups of nontarget organisms, such as bees, for important ecosystem functions and meeting restoration goals. We investigated long-term patterns in the response of bees to habitat restoration by sampling bee communities along a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie in north-central Illinois, U.S.A. Specifically, we examined how bee communities changed over time since restoration in terms of (1) abundance and richness, (2) community composition, and (3) the two components of beta diversity, one-to-one species replacement, and changes in species richness. Bee abundance and raw richness increased with restoration age from the low level of the pre-restoration (agricultural) sites to the target level of the remnant prairie within the first 2–3 years after restoration, and these high levels were maintained throughout the entire restoration chronosequence. Bee community composition of the youngest restored sites differed from that of prairie remnants, but 5–7 years post-restoration the community composition of restored prairie converged with that of remnants. Landscape context, particularly nearby wooded land, was found to affect abundance, rarefied richness, and community composition. Partitioning overall beta diversity between sites into species replacement and richness effects revealed that the main driver of community change over time was the gradual accumulation of species, rather than one-to-one species replacement. At the spatial and temporal scales we studied, we conclude that prairie restoration efforts targeting plants also successfully restore bee communities." | ABSTRACT:"The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has converted just over 36 million acres of cropland into potential wildlife habitat, primarily grassland. Thus, the CRP should benefit grassland songbirds, a group of species that is declining across the United States and is of conservation concern. Additionally, the CRP is an important part of multi-agency, regional efforts to restore northern bobwhite populations. However, comprehensive assessments of the wildlife benefits of CRP at regional scales are lacking. We used Breeding Bird Survey and National Resources Inventory data to assess the potential for the CRP to benefit northern bobwhite and other grassland birds with overlapping ranges and similar habitat associations. We built regression models for 15 species in seven different ecological regions. Forty-nine of 108 total models contained significant CRP effects (P < 0.05), and 48 of the 49 contained positive effects. Responses to CRP varied across ecological regions. Only eastern meadowlark was positively related to CRP in all the ecological regions, and western meadowlark was the only species never related to CRP. CRP was a strong predictor of bird abundance compared to other land cover types. The potential for CRP habitat as a regional conservation tool to benefit declining grassland bird populations should continue to be assessed at a variety of spatial scales. We caution that bird-CRP relations varied from region to region and among species. Because the NRI provides relatively coarse resolution information on CRP, more detailed information about CRP habitats (spatial arrangement, age of the habitat (time since planting), specific conservation practices used) should be included in future assessments to fully understand where and to what extent CRP can benefit grassland birds. " |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None Identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | None reported |
|
Biophysical Context
|
No additional description provided | No additional description provided | No additional description provided | The Nachusa Grasslands consists of over 1,900 ha of restored prairie plantings, prairie remnants, and other habitats such as wetlands and oak savanna. The area is generally mesic with an average annual precipitation of 975 mm, and most precipitation occurs during the growing season. | Conservation Reserve Program lands left to go fallow |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | More conservative, average and less conservative nitrate loss rate | No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented | N/A |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-346 | Doc-347 ?Comment:EnviroAtlas maps BNF based on a correlation with AET modeled by Cleveland et al. 1999, and modified by land use (% natural vs. ag/developed) within each HUC. AET was modeled using climate and land use parameters (equation from Sanford and Selnick 2013). For full citations of these related models, see below, "Document ID for related EM. |
None | Doc-389 | None | Doc-405 |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
None | None | EM-697 | None | EM-831 | EM-838 | EM-839 | EM-842 | EM-843 | EM-844 | EM-845 | EM-846 | EM-847 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
2006-2010 | 1973-1999 | 2007-2008 | 1988-2014 | 2008 |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-stationary |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Day | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Geopolitical | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis) | Physiographic or ecological | Physiographic or ecological |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
counterminous United States | Upper Mississippi River and Ohio River basins | East Midlands | Nachusa Grasslands | Piedmont Ecoregion |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
>1,000,000 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 | 1000-10,000 km^2. | 10-100 km^2 | 100,000-1,000,000 km^2 |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) ?Comment:Watersheds (12-digit HUCs). |
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
?
|
other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
irregular | 1 km2 | multiple unrelated locations | Area varies by site | Not applicable |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Numeric | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic |
|
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
|
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model Checking Procedures Used
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | No | Yes |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | No | No |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No |
No ?Comment:However, agreement of submodel and intermediate components; annual discharge (R2=0.79), and nitrate-N load (R2=0.74), based on GIS land use were determined in comparison with USGS NASQAN data. |
Not applicable | No | No |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | No | No |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | No | Yes |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
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-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
|
|
|
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
| None | None | None | None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
39.5 | 40.6 | 52.22 | 41.89 | 36.23 |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
-98.35 | -88.4 | -0.91 | -89.34 | -81.9 |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Provided | Estimated |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Inland Wetlands | Agroecosystems | Created Greenspace | Grasslands | Agroecosystems | Grasslands | Grasslands |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Terrestrial | Agroecosystems and associated drainage and wetlands | restored landfills and grasslands | Restored prairie, prairie remnants, and cropland | grasslands |
|
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to 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-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Individual or population, within a species | Species | Species |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
| 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-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
|
|
|
|
<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-63 | EM-627 |
EM-709
|
EM-788
|
EM-841 |
|
|
None | None |
|