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-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369 
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Area and hotspots of soil retention, South Africa | Rate of Fire Spread | Envision, Puget Sound, WA, USA | SAV occurrence, St. Louis River, MN/WI, USA | Dickcissel density, CREP, Iowa, USA | WESP: Riparian & stream habitat, ID, USA | ComunityViz - land-sea planning submodel |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Area and hotspots of soil retention, South Africa | Rate of Fire Spread | Envision, Puget Sound, WA, USA | Predicting submerged aquatic vegetation occurrence, St. Louis River Estuary, MN & WI, USA | Dickcissel population density, CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) wetlands, Iowa, USA | WESP: Riparian and stream habitat focus projects, ID, USA | A technical guide to the integrated land-sea planning toolkit |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
None | None | Envision | US EPA | None | None | None |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
271 | 306 |
313 ?Comment:Doc 314 is a secondary source. It is a webpage guide intended to provide support for developing an application using ENVISION. |
330 | 372 |
393 ?Comment:Additional data came from electronic appendix provided by author Chris Murphy. |
473 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., and van Jaarsveld, A.S. | Rothermel, Richard C. | Bolte, J. and Vache, K. | Ted R. Angradi, Mark S. Pearson, David W. Bolgrien, Brent J. Bellinger, Matthew A. Starry, Carol Reschke | Otis, D. L., W. G. Crumpton, D. Green, A. K. Loan-Wilsey, R. L. McNeely, K. L. Kane, R. Johnson, T. Cooper, and M. Vandever | Murphy, C. and T. Weekley | Crist, P., Madden, K., Varley, I., Eslinger, D., Walker, D., Anderson, A., Morehead, S. and Dunton, K., |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2008 | 1972 | 2010 | 2013 | 2010 | 2012 | 2009 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management | A Mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels | Envisioning Puget Sound Alternative Futures: PSNERP Final Report | Predicting submerged aquatic vegetation cover and occurrence in a Lake Superior estuary | Assessment of environmental services of CREP wetlands in Iowa and the midwestern corn belt | Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho-- Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context. | Integrated Land-Sea Planning: A Technical Guide to the Integrated Land-Sea Planning Toolkit. |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
Peer reviewed and published | Documented, not peer reviewed | Documentation is 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 USDA Forest Service report | Published report | Published journal manuscript | Published report | Published report | Published report |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
| Not applicable | http://firelab.org/project/farsite | http://envision.bioe.orst.edu | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstreams/3dee92a8-9373-4bcc-be25-eda74e81fabf/download | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Benis Egoh | Charles McHugh |
John Bolte ?Comment:Phone# 541-737-2041 |
Ted R. Angradi | David Otis | Chris Murphy |
Patrick Crist ?Comment:No contact information provided |
|
Contact Address
|
Water Resources Unit, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission - Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy | RMRS Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 5775 US Highway 10 West, Missoula, MT 59808 | Oregon State University, Dept. of Biological & Ecological Engineering, 116C Gilmore Hall, Corvallis, OR 97333 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, 6201 Congdon Blvd., Duluth, MN 55804, USA | U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University | Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section, Boise, ID | None provided |
|
Contact Email
|
Not reported | cmchugh@fs.fed.us | boltej@engr.orst.edu | angradi.theodore@epa.gov | dotis@iastate.edu | chris.murphy@idfg.idaho.gov | patrick@planitfwd.com |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "We define the range of ecosystem services as areas of meaningful supply, similar to a species’ range or area of occupancy. The term ‘‘hotspots’’ was proposed by Norman Myers in the 1980s and refers to areas of high species richness, endemism and/or threat and has been widely used to prioritise areas for biodiversity conservation. Similarly, this study suggests that hotspots for ecosystem services are areas of critical management importance for the service. Here the term ecosystem service hotspot is used to refer to areas which provide large proportions of a particular service, and do not include measures of threat or endemism…Soil retention was modelled as a function of vegetation or litter cover and soil erosion potential. Schoeman et al. (2002) modelled soil erosion potential and derived eight erosion classes, ranging from low to severe erosion potential for South Africa. The vegetation cover was mapped by ranking vegetation types using expert knowledge of their ability to curb erosion. We used Schulze (2004) index of litter cover which estimates the soil surface covered by litter based on observations in a range of grasslands, woodlands and natural forests. According to Quinton et al. (1997) and Fowler and Rockstrom (2001) soil erosion is slightly reduced with about 30%, significantly reduced with about 70% vegetation cover. The range of soil retention was mapped by selecting all areas that had vegetation or litter cover of more than 30% for both the expert classified vegetation types and litter accumulation index within areas with moderate to severe erosion potential. The hotspot was mapped as areas with severe erosion potential and vegetation/litter cover of at least 70% where maintaining the cover is essential to prevent erosion. An assumption was made that the potential for this service is relatively low in areas with little natural vegetation or litter cover." | ABSTRACT: "The development of a mathematical model for predicting rate of fire spread and intensity applicable to a wide range of wildland fuels is presented from the conceptual stage through evaluation and demonstration of results to hypothetical fuel models. The model was developed for and is now being used as a basis for appraising fire spread and intensity in the National Fire Danger Rating System. The initial work was done using fuel arrays composed of uniform size particles. Three fuel sizes were tested over a wide range of bulk densities. These were 0.026-inch-square cut excelsior, 114-inch sticks, and 112-inch sticks. The problem of mixed fuel sizes was then resolved by weighting the various particle sizes that compose actual fuel arrays by either surface area or loading, depending upon the feature of the fire being predicted. The model is complete in the sense that no prior knowledge of a fuel's burning characteristics is required. All that is necessary are inputs describing the physical and chemical makeup of the fuel and the environmental conditions in which it is expected to burn. Inputs include fuel loading, fuel depth, fuel particle surface-area-to-volume ratio, fuel particle heat content, fuel particle moisture and mineral content, and the moisture content at which extinction can be expected. Environmental inputs are mean wind velocity and slope of terrain. For heterogeneous mixtures, the fuel properties are entered for each particle size. The model as originally conceived was for dead fuels in a uniform stratum contiguous to the ground, such as litter or grass. It has been found to be useful, however, for fuels ranging from pine needle litter to heavy logging slash and for California brush fields." **FARSITE4 will no longer be supported or available for download or further supported. FlamMap6 now includes FARSITE.** | SUMMARY: "...the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, completed an analysis of alternative future regional trajectories of landscape change for the Puget Sound region. This effort developed three scenarios of change: 1) Status Quo, reflecting a continuation of current trends in the region, 2) Managed Growth, reflecting the adoption of an aggressive set of land use management policies focusing on protecting and restoring ecosystem function and concentrating growth within Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and near regional growth centers, and 3) Unmanaged Growth, reflecting a relaxation of land use restrictions with limited protection of ecosystem functions. Analyses assumed a fixed population growth rate across all three scenarios, defined by the Washington Office of Financial Management county level growth estimates. Scenarios were generated using a spatially- and temporally-explicit alternative futures analysis model, Envision, previously developed by Oregon State University researchers. The model accepts as input a vector-based representation of the landscape and associated datasets describing relevant landscape characteristics, descriptors of various processes influencing landscape change, and a set of policies, or decision alternatives, which reflect scenario-specific land management alternatives. The model generates 1) a set of spatial coverages (maps) reflecting scenario outcomes of a variety of landscape variables, most notably land use/land cover, shoreline modifications, and population projections, and 2) a set of summary statistics describing landscape change variables summarized across spatial reporting units. Analyses were run on each of such sub-basins in the Puget Sound, and aggregated to providing Sound-wide results. This information is being used by PSNERP to project future impairment of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem project data also provide inputs to calculate aspects of future nearshore process degradation. Impairment and degradation are primary factors being used to define future conditions for the PSNERP General Investigation Study." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "In this report, we document the application of an alternative futures analysis framework that incorporates these capabilities to the analysis of alternative future trajectories in the Puget Sound region. This framework, Envision (Bolte et al, 2007; Hulse et al. 2008) is a spatially and temporally explicit, standards-based, open source toolset specifically designed to facilitate alternative futures analyses. It employs a multiagent-based modeling approach that contains a robust capability for defining alternative management strategies and scenarios, incorporating a variety of landscape change processes, and creating maps of alternative landscape trajectories, expressed though a variety of metrics defined in an application-specific way." ABOUT ENVISION (ENVISION WEBSITE): "Central to Envision, and conceived at the s | ABSTRACT: “Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) provides the biophysical basis for multiple ecosystem services in Great Lakes estuaries. Understanding sources of variation in SAV is necessary for sustainable management of SAV habitat. From data collected using hydroacoustic survey methods, we created predictive models for SAV in the St. Louis River Estuary (SLRE) of western Lake Superior. The dominant SAV species in most areas of the estuary was American wild celery (Vallisneria americana Michx.)…” AUTHOR’S DESCRIPTION: “The SLRE is a Great Lakes “rivermouth” ecosystem as defined by Larson et al. (2013). The 5000-ha estuary forms a section of the state border between Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin…In the SLRE, SAV beds are often patchy, turbidity varies considerably among areas (DeVore, 1978) and over time, and the growing season is short. Given these conditions, hydroacoustic survey methods were the best option for generating the extensive, high resolution data needed for modeling. From late July through mid September in 2011, we surveyed SAV in Allouez Bay, part of Superior Bay, eastern half of St. Louis Bay, and Spirit Lake…We used the measured SAV percent cover at the location immediately previous to each useable record location along each transect as a lag variable to correct for possible serial autocorrelation of model error. SAV percent cover, substrate parameters, corrected depth, and exposure and bed slope data were combined in Arc-GIS...We created logistic regression models for each area of the SLRE to predict the probability of SAV being present at each report location. We created models for the training data set using the Logistic procedure in SAS v.9.1 with step wise elimination (?=0.05). Plots of cover by depth for selected predictor values (Supplementary Information Appendix C) suggested that interactions between depth and other predictors were likely to be significant, and so were included in regression models. We retained the main effect if their interaction terms were significant in the model. We examined the performance of the models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. AUROC is the probability of concordance between random pairs of observations and ranges from 0.5 to 1 (Gönen, 2006). We cross-validated logistic occurrence models for their ability to classify correctly locations in the validation (holdout) dataset and in the Superior Bay dataset… Model performance, as indicated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was >0.8 (Table 3). Assessed accuracy of models (the percent of records where the predicted probability of occurrence and actual SAV presence or absence agreed) for split datasets was 79% for Allouez Bay, 86% for St. Louis Bay, and 78% for Spirit Lake." | ABSTRACT: "This final project report is a compendium of 3 previously submitted progress reports and a 4th report for work accomplished from August – December, 2009. Our initial primary objective (Progress Report I) was prediction of environmental services provided by the 27 Iowa Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) wetland sites that had been completed by 2007 in the Prairie Pothole Region of northcentral Iowa. The sites contain 102.4 ha of wetlands and 377.4 ha of associated grassland buffers... With respect to wildlife habitat value, USFWS models predicted that the 27 wetlands would provide habitat for 136 pairs of 6 species of ducks, 48 pairs of Canada Geese, and 839 individuals of 5 grassland songbird species of special concern..." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "The migratory bird benefits of the 27 CREP sites were predicted for Dickcissel (Spiza americana)... Population estimates for these species were calculated using models developed by Quamen (2007) for the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa (Table 3). The “neighborhood analysis” tool in the spatial analysis extension of ArcGIS (2008) was used to create landscape composition variables (grass400, grass3200, hay400, hay3200, tree400) needed for model input (see Table 3 for variable definitions). Values for the species-specific relative abundance (bbspath) variable were acquired from Diane Granfors, USFWS HAPET office. The equations for each model were used to calculate bird density (birds/ha) for each 15-m2 pixel of the land coverage. Next, the “zonal statistics” tool in the spatial analyst extension of ArcGIS (ESRI 2008) was used to calculate the average bird density for each CREP buffer. A population estimate for each site was then calculated by multiplying the average density by the buffer size." Equation: DICK density = 1-1/1+e^(-6.811334 + 1.889878 * bbspath) * e^(-1.831015 + 0.0312571 * hay400) | A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level. | CommunityViz® is an advanced yet easy-to-use GIS software extension that is designed to help people visualize, analyze, and communicate about important planning decisions. Widely adopted by land-use planners, it supports informed, collaborative decision-making by illustrating and analyzing alternative planning scenarios. It features flexible and interactive analysis tools, a rich set of presentation tools, and several options for 3D visualization of future places. In the land-sea toolkit, CommunityViz (sometimes referred to as “Cviz”) serves as the platform for creating land use scenarios. It models how urban growth could occur over time as the result of present-day decisions regarding land use and regulation. The resulting future growth conditions are passed to NatureServe Vista (Vista) and NSPECT for impact assessment, and those results can be returned to CommunityViz for display and for guidance in development of revisions to planning scenarios. Throughout the integration process, CommunityViz provides the ability to assess a variety of socio-economic indicators attached to the land-use scenarios. |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | None provided |
|
Biophysical Context
|
Semi-arid environment. Rainfall varies geographically from less than 50 to about 3000 mm per year (annual mean 450 mm). Soils are mostly very shallow with limited irrigation potential. | Not applicable | No additional description provided | submerged aquatic vegetation | Prairie pothole region of north-central Iowa | restored, enhanced and created wetlands | Not applicable |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented | Alternative future land management strategies (status quo, managed growth, unmanaged growth) | No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented | Sites, function or habitat focus | No scenarios presented |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method Only | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method Only |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | Application of existing model | New or revised model |
Application of existing model ?Comment:Models developed by Quamen (2007). |
Application of existing model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-271 ?Comment:Document 273 used for source information on soil erosion potential variable |
None |
Doc-314 | Doc-47 ?Comment:Doc 314 is a secondary source. It is a webpage guide intended to provide support for developing an application using ENVISION. |
None | Doc-372 | Doc-390 | Doc-473 |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-85 | EM-87 | EM-88 | None | EM-12 | EM-333 | None | EM-652 | EM-650 | EM-649 | EM-648 | EM-706 | EM-729 | EM-730 | EM-734 | EM-743 | EM-749 | EM-750 | EM-756 | EM-757 | EM-758 | EM-759 | EM-760 | EM-761 | EM-763 | EM-764 | EM-766 | EM-767 | EM-732 | EM-737 | EM-738 | EM-739 | EM-741 | EM-742 | EM-751 | EM-768 | EM-1003 | EM-1006 | EM-1007 | EM-1008 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
Not reported | Not applicable | 2000-2060 | 2010 - 2012 | 1992-2007 | 2010-2011 | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | Not applicable | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-dependent |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | Not applicable | past time | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | other or unclear (comment) |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Year | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Geopolitical | Not applicable | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Physiographic or ecological | Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis) | Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis) | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
South Africa | Not applicable | Puget Sound watershed | St. Louis River Estuary | CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) wetland sites | Wetlands in idaho | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
>1,000,000 km^2 | Not applicable | 10,000-100,000 km^2 | 10-100 km^2 | 1-10 km^2 | 100,000-1,000,000 km^2 | Not applicable |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | Not applicable | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) ?Comment:BH: Each individual transect?s data was parceled into location reports, and that each report?s ?quadrat? area was dependent upon the angle of the hydroacoustic sampling beam. The spatial grain is 0.07 m^2, 0.20 m^2 and 0.70 m^2 for depths of 1 meter, 2 meters and 3 meters, respectively. |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | other or unclear (comment) |
|
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | Not applicable | Irregular | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Distributed across catchments with average size of 65,000 ha | Not applicable | Varies | 0.07 m^2 to 0.70 m^2 | multiple, individual, irregular shaped sites | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Analytic | Numeric | Analytic | Analytic | Numeric | Analytic |
|
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
|
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model Checking Procedures Used
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | Not applicable | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
No | Not applicable | Not applicable | Yes | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
None | None | None |
|
None | None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | No | Not applicable | Yes | Unclear | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | Not applicable | Not applicable | No | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | Not applicable | Not applicable | No | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 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.detail.relationToSpaceTerrestrialHelp
?
| EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
None |
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
| None | None |
|
None | None | None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
-30 | -9999 | 47.58 | 46.72 | 42.62 | 44.06 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
25 | -9999 | -122.32 | -96.13 | -93.84 | -114.69 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | Not applicable | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Estimated | Not applicable | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Not applicable |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Inland Wetlands | Lakes and Ponds | Inland Wetlands | Agroecosystems | Grasslands | Inland Wetlands | Not applicable |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Not reported | Not applicable | Pacific NW US region, coastal to montane, urban to rural | Freshwater estuarine system | Grassland buffering inland wetlands set in agricultural land | created, restored and enhanced wetlands | None |
|
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 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 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-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Species | Not applicable | Community |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
| None Available | None Available | None Available | None Available |
|
None Available | None Available |
EnviroAtlas URL
EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system
CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)
em.detail.cicesHelp
?
| EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
|
None | None |
|
|
|
|
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-nescs-plus">National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus</a>
fegs1Help
?
(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)
fegs2Help
?
| EM-86 | EM-337 |
EM-369
|
EM-414 | EM-651 |
EM-718
|
EM-1005 |
| None | None | None | None |
|
None | None |