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-63
EM-70
EM-320
EM-630
EM-653
EM-841
EM-893

Add EM to Compare:

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	EnviroAtlas - Natural biological nitrogen fixation	Plant species diversity, Central French Alps	Coastal protection, Europe	WaterWorld v2, Santa Basin, Peru	Natural amenities and population migration, USA	Brown-headed cowbird abundance, Piedmont, USA	HWB indicator-ADI, Great Lakes, USA
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	US EPA EnviroAtlas - BNF (Natural biological nitrogen fixation), USA	Plant species diversity, Central French Alps	Coastal protection, Europe	WaterWorld v2, Santa Basin, Peru	Natural amenities and rural population migration, USA	Brown-headed cowbird abundance, Piedmont ecoregion, USA	Human well being indicator- Area Deprivation Index (ADI) , Great Lakes waterfront, USA
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	US EPA \| EnviroAtlas	EU Biodiversity Action 5	EU Biodiversity Action 5	None	USDA Forest Service	None	US EPA
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.	260	296	368	375	405	422 ? Comment: Has not been submitted to Journal yet, but has been peer reviewed by EPA inhouse and outside reviewers
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	US EPA Office of Research and Development - National Exposure Research Laboratory	Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R.	Liquete, C., Zulian, G., Delgado, I., Stips, A., and Maes, J.	Van Soesbergen, A. and M. Mulligan	Cordell H. K., V. Heboyan, F. Santos, J. C. Bergstrom	Riffel, S., Scognamillo, D., and L. W. Burger	Ted R. Angradi, Jonathon J. Launspach, and Molly J. Wick
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2013	2011	2013	2018	2011	2008	None
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	EnviroAtlas - National	Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services	Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem service in Europe	Potential outcomes of multi-variable climate change on water resources in the Santa Basin, Peru	Natural amenities and rural population migration	Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on northern bobwhite and grassland birds	Human well-being and natural capital indictors for Great Lakes waterfront revitalization
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 but unpublished (explain in Comment)
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	Published on US EPA EnviroAtlas website	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published report	Published journal manuscript	Journal manuscript submitted or in review

Software and Access

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas	Not applicable	Not applicable	www.policysupport.org/waterworld	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	EnviroAtlas Team ? Comment: Additional contact: Jana Compton, EPA	Sandra Lavorel	Camino Liquete	Arnout van Soesbergen	Ken Cordell	Sam Riffell	Ted Angradi
Contact Address	Not reported	Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France	European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra, VA, Italy	Environmental Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Geography, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK	U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA 30602	Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA	USEPA, Center for Computational Toxicology and Ecology, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, MN 55804
Contact Email	enviroatlas@epa.gov	sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr	camino.liquete@gmail.com	arnout.van_soesbergen@kcl.ac.uk	Not reported	sriffell@cfr.msstate.edu	tedangradi@gmail.com

EM Description

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
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: "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: "Simpson species diversity was modelled using the LU + abiotic [land use and all abiotic variables] model given that functional diversity should be a consequence of species diversity rather than the reverse (Lepsˇ et al. 2006)…Species diversity for each pixel was calculated and mapped using model estimates for effects of land use types, and for regression coefficients on abiotic variables. For each pixel these calculations were applied to mapped estimates of abiotic variables."	ABSTRACT: "Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services is essential to provide scientific support to global and EU biodiversity policy. Coastal protection has been mostly analysed in the frame of coastal vulnerability studies or in local, habitat-specific assessments. This paper provides a conceptual and methodological approach to assess coastal protection as an ecosystem service at different spatial–temporal scales, and applies it to the entire EU coastal zone. The assessment of coastal protection incorporates 14 biophysical and socio-economic variables from both terrestrial and marine datasets. Those variables define three indicators: coastal protection capacity, coastal exposure and human demand for protection. A questionnaire filled by coastal researchers helped assign ranks to categorical parameters and weights to the individual variables. The three indicators are then framed into the ecosystem services cascade model to estimate how coastal ecosystems provide protection, in particular describing the service function, flow and benefit. The results are comparative and aim to support integrated land and marine spatial planning. The main drivers of change for the provision of coastal protection come from the widespread anthropogenic pressures in the European coastal zone, for which a short quantitative analysis is provided."	ABSTRACT: "Water resources in the Santa basin in the Peruvian Andes are increasingly under pressure from climate change and population increases. Impacts of temperature-driven glacier retreat on stream flow are better studied than those from precipitation changes, yet present and future water resources are mostly dependent on precipitation which is more difficult to predict with climate models. This study combines a broad range of projections from climate models with a hydrological model (WaterWorld), showing a general trend towards an increase in water availability due to precipitation increases over the basin. However, high uncertainties in these projections necessitate the need for basin-wide policies aimed at increased adaptability." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "WaterWorld is a fully distributed, process-based hydrological model that utilises remotely sensed and globally available datasets to support hydrological analysis and decision-making at national and local scales globally, with a particular focus on un-gauged and/or data-poor environments, which makes it highly suited to this study. The model (version 2) currently runs on either 10 degree tiles, large river basins or countries at 1-km2 resolution or 1 degree tiles at 1-ha resolution utilising different datasets. It simulates a hydrological baseline as a mean for the period 1950-2000 and can be used to calculate the hydrological impact of scenarios of climate change, land use change, land management options, impacts of extractives (oil & gas and mining) and impacts of changes in population and demography as well as combinations of these. The model is ‘self parameterising’ (Mulligan, 2013a) in the sense that all data required for model application anywhere in the world is provided with the model, removing a key barrier to model application. However, if users have better data than those provided, it is possible to upload these to WaterWorld as GIS files and use them instead. Results can be viewed visually within the web browser or downloaded as GIS maps. The model’s equations and processes are described in more detail in Mulligan and Burke (2005) and Mulligan (2013b). The model parameters are not routinely calibrated to observed flows as it is designed for hydrological scenario analysis in which the physical basis of its parameters must be retained and the model is also often used in un-gauged basins. Calibration is inappropriate under these circumstances (Sivapalan et al., 2003). The freely available nature of the model means that anyone can apply it and replicate the results shown here. WaterWorld’s (V2) snow and ice module is capable of simulating the processes of melt water production, snow fall and snow pack, making this version highly suited to the current application. The model component is based on a full energy-balance for snow accumulation and melting based on Walter et al., (2005) with input data provided globally by the SimTerra database (Mulligan, 2011) upon which the model r	ABSTRACT: "Research suggests that significant relationships exist between rural population change and natural amenities. Thus, understanding and predicting domestic migration trends as a function of changes in natural amenities is important for effective regional growth and development policies and strategies. In this study, we first estimated an econometric model which showed the effects of natural amenities, such as climate and landscape variables, on rural population migration patterns in the United States between 1990 and 2007. The estimated model was then used to predict the effects of changes in these variables on rural county net migration and population growth to 2060 under alternative future climate and land use projections. Results suggest that people prefer rural areas with mild winters and cooler summers; thus we can expect a direct impact of climate change on population migration when areas associated with these conditions change. Results also suggest preference for varied landscapes that feature a mix of forest land and open space (e g , pasture and range land). During the projection period from 2010 to 2060 in the United States, changes in natural amenities were predicted to have positive effects on rural population migration trends in most parts of the Intermountain and Pacific Northwest regions, and some parts of the Southeastern, South Central, and Northeastern U S regions (e g , Southern Appalachian Mountains, Ozark Mountains, northern New England). Changes in natural amenities were predicted to have negative effects on rural population migration trends during the projection period in Midwestern regions (e g , Great Plains and North Central regions)." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "This model was estimated for 2,014 rural counties in the continental United States using various national data bases and sources. The estimated model was then used to predict the effects of changes in these variables on rural county net migration and population growth to 2060 under alternative future climate and land use projections."	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. "	ABSTRACT: "Revitalization of natural capital amenities at the Great Lakes waterfront can result from sediment remediation, habitat restoration, climate resilience projects, brownfield reuse, economic redevelopment and other efforts. Practical indicators are needed to assess the socioeconomic and cultural benefits of these investments. We compiled U.S. census-tract scale data for five Great Lakes communities: Duluth/Superior, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Cleveland. We downloaded data from the US Census Bureau, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and non-governmental organizations. We compiled a final set of 19 objective human well-being (HWB) metrics and 26 metrics representing attributes of natural and 7 seminatural amenities (natural capital). We rated the reliability of metrics according to their consistency of correlations with metric of the other type (HWB vs. natural capital) at the census-tract scale, how often they were correlated in the expected direction, strength of correlations, and other attributes. Among the highest rated HWB indicators were measures of mean health, mental health, home ownership, home value, life success, and educational attainment. Highest rated natural capital metrics included tree cover and impervious surface metrics, walkability, density of recreational amenities, and shoreline type. Two ociodemographic covariates, household income and population density, had a strong influence on the associations between HWB and natural capital and must be included in any assessment of change in HWB benefits in the waterfront setting. Our findings are a starting point for applying objective HWB and natural capital indicators in a waterfront revitalization context."
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	None Identified	None identified	Supports global and EU biodiversity policy	None identified	None identified	None reported	None identified
Biophysical Context	No additional description provided	Elevation ranges from 1552 to 2442 m, predominantly on south-facing slopes	No additional description provided	Large river valley located on the western slope of the Peruvian Andes between the Cordilleras Blanca and Negra. Precipitation is distinctly seasonal.	No additional description provided	Conservation Reserve Program lands left to go fallow	Waterfront districts on south Lake Michigan and south lake Erie
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	No scenarios presented	No scenarios presented	No scenarios presented	Scenarios base on high growth and 3.5oC warming by 2100, and scenarios based on moderate growth and 2.5oC warming by 2100	Climate projections based on the CGCM 3 1 general circulation model of moderate warming (IPCC). The A1B scenario assumes a growing world population that peaks in the mid-century and balanced technological growth.	N/A	N/A

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method + Application
New or Pre-existing EM? em.detail.newOrExistHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing 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 ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
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.	Doc-260	None	None	None	Doc-405	Doc-422
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	None	EM-65 \| EM-66 \| EM-68 \| EM-69 \| EM-71 \| EM-79 \| EM-80 \| EM-81 \| EM-82 \| EM-83	None	None	None	EM-831 \| EM-838 \| EM-839 \| EM-842 \| EM-843 \| EM-844 \| EM-845 \| EM-846 \| EM-847	EM-886 \| EM-888 \| EM-889 \| EM-890 \| EM-891 \| EM-894 \| EM-895

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	2006-2010	2007-2009	1992-2010	1950-2071	1982-2060	2008	2022
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-dependent	time-dependent	time-stationary	time-stationary
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	both	future time	Not applicable	Not applicable
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	discrete	discrete	Not applicable	Not applicable
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	1	1	Not applicable	Not applicable
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Month	Year	Not applicable	Not applicable

EM Spatial Extent

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Geopolitical	Physiographic or Ecological	Geopolitical	Watershed/Catchment/HUC	Geopolitical	Physiographic or ecological	Geopolitical
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	counterminous United States	Central French Alps	Shoreline of the European Union-27	Santa Basin	continental United States	Piedmont Ecoregion	Great Lakes waterfront
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	>1,000,000 km^2	10-100 km^2	>1,000,000 km^2	10,000-100,000 km^2	>1,000,000 km^2	100,000-1,000,000 km^2	1000-10,000 km^2.

Spatial Distribution of Computations

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
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 distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially lumped (in all 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	area, for pixel or radial feature	area, for pixel or radial feature	map scale, for cartographic feature	Not applicable	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	irregular	20 m x 20 m	Irregular	1 km2	varies	Not applicable	Not applicable

EM Structure and Computation Approach

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	Analytic	Analytic	Analytic	*	Numeric	Analytic	Numeric
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	None	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics

Model Checking Procedures Used

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	None	R squared \| 31 \| Not applicable	None	None	None	None	None
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Unclear	Not applicable

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Location of EM Application

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

EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
North America United States	Europe France	Europe Cyprus Portugal Malta Greece Austria Latvia Netherlands Sweden Ireland Luxembourg Poland Slovakia Slovenia Bulgaria France Lithuania Romania Hungary United Kingdom Spain Czech Republic Belgium Finland Denmark Italy Germany Estonia	None	North America United States	North America United States North Carolina Georgia Alabama Maryland New Jersey South Carolina Pennsylvania	North America United States Illinois Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin

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

EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
None	None	Temperate North Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northern European Seas Celtic Seas Faroe Plateau North Sea Mediterranean Sea Mediterranean Sea Western Mediterranean Aegean Sea Alboran Sea Adriatic Sea Ionian Sea	None	None	None	None

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	39.5	45.05	48.2	-9.05	39.8	36.23	42.26
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-98.35	6.4	16.35	-77.81	-98.55	-81.9	-87.84
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Estimated	Provided	Estimated	Estimated	Estimated	Estimated	Estimated

Environments and Scales Modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	None	Rivers and Streams \| Inland Wetlands \| Lakes and Ponds \| Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine \| Forests \| Agroecosystems \| Grasslands \| Scrubland/Shrubland \| Barren	Grasslands	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Terrestrial	Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows	Coastal zones	tropical, coastal to montane	Terrestrial environments including water bodies and coastlines	grasslands	Lake Michigan & Lake Erie waterfront
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Not applicable	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Other or unclear (comment)	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 ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Not applicable	Community	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Species	Not applicable

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
None Available	None Available	None Available	None Available	None Available	Species Brown headed cowbird	None Available

EnviroAtlas URL

EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
Average Annual Precipitation, Natural Biological Nitrogen Fixation, The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)	None Available	Dasymetric Allocation of Population, National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHD PlusV2), Percent potentially restorable wetlands on agricultural land	Average Annual Precipitation	Dasymetric Allocation of Population, GAP Ecological Systems, Average Annual Precipitation, Total Employment, Employment Rate	GAP Ecological Systems, U.S. EPA (Omernik) ecoregions	GAP Ecological Systems, Enabling Conditions

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-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Soil formation and composition Decomposition and fixing processes	None	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Mediation of flows Gaseous / air flows Storm protection	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 Experiential use of plants, animals and land-/seascapes in different environmental settings Intellectual and representative interactions Aesthetic Entertainment	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats	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>

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

EM-63	EM-70	EM-320	EM-630	EM-653	EM-841	EM-893
Atmosphere Soil (2) Specific types of soil Quality Indicator	None	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Composite (8) Regulation of extreme events Extreme Event Indicator	None	None	Grasslands (23) Fauna (4) Birds Stock Indicator	None

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:

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

Comment:

EM Modeling Approach

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)