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-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480 
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Litter biomass production, Central French Alps | Cultural ES and plant traits, Central French Alps | WaSSI, Conterminous USA | Pharmaceutical product potential, St. Croix, USVI | Yasso07 - Land use SOC dynamics, China | EnviroAtlas - Restorable wetlands | InVEST fisheries, lobster, South Africa |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Litter biomass production, Central French Alps | Cultural ecosystem service estimated from plant functional traits, Central French Alps | Water Supply Stress Index, Conterminous USA | Relative pharmaceutical product potential (on reef), St. Croix, USVI | Yasso07 - Land use dynamics of Soil Organic Carbon in the Loess Plateau, China | US EPA EnviroAtlas - Percent potentially restorable wetlands, USA | Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs Fisheries, rock lobster, South Africa |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
EU Biodiversity Action 5 | EU Biodiversity Action 5 |
USDA Forest Service ?Comment:While the user guide on which model entry is based has not been peer reviewed, several peer reviewed journal articles describing this USA HUC8 version of WaSSI have been published. |
US EPA | None | US EPA | EnviroAtlas | InVEST |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
260 | 260 | 341 | 335 | 344 | 262 |
349 ?Comment:Supplemented with the InVEST Users Guide fisheries. |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R. | Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R. | Peter Caldwell, Ge Sun, Steve McNulty, Jennifer Moore Myers, Erika Cohen, Robert Herring, Erik Martinez | Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., and L. M. Oliver | Wu, Xing, Akujarvi, A., Lu, N., Liski, J., Liu, G., Want, Y, Holmberg, M., Li, F., Zeng, Y., and B. Fu | US EPA Office of Research and Development - National Exposure Research Laboratory | Ward, Michelle, Hugh Possingham, Johathan R. Rhodes, Peter Mumby |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2011 | 2011 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2013 | 2018 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services | Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services | WaSSI Ecosystem Services Model | Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI | Dynamics of soil organic carbon stock in a typical catchment of the Loess Plateau: comparison of model simulations with measurement | EnviroAtlas - National | Food, money and lobsters: Valuing ecosystem services to align environmental management with Sustainable Development Goals |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Not peer reviewed but is published (explain in Comment) | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published |
|
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | While the user guide on which model entry is based has not been peer reviewed, several peer reviewed journal articles describing this USA HUC8 version of WaSSI have been published. | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published on US EPA EnviroAtlas website | Published journal manuscript |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
| Not applicable | Not applicable | http://www.wassiweb.sgcp.ncsu.edu/ | Not applicable | http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/yasso-download-and-support | https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas | https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Sandra Lavorel | Sandra Lavorel | Ge Sun | Susan H. Yee | Xing Wu | EnviroAtlas Team | Michelle Ward |
|
Contact Address
|
Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France | Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France | Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 920 Main Campus Dr. Venture II, Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27606 | US EPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China | Not reported | ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia |
|
Contact Email
|
sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr | sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr | gesun@fs.fed.us | yee.susan@epa.gov | xingwu@rceesac.cn | enviroatlas@epa.gov | m.ward@uq.edu.au |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
ABSTRACT: "Here, we propose a new approach for the analysis, mapping and understanding of multiple ES delivery in landscapes. Spatially explicit single ES models based on plant traits and abiotic characteristics are combined to identify ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spots of multiple ES delivery, and the land use and biotic determinants of such distributions. We demonstrate the value of this trait-based approach as compared to a pure land-use approach for a pastoral landscape from the central French Alps, and highlight how it improves understanding of ecological constraints to, and opportunities for, the delivery of multiple services. Vegetative height and leaf traits such as leaf dry matter content were response traits strongly influenced by land use and abiotic environment, with follow-on effects on several ecosystem properties (e.g., litter biomass production), and could therefore be used as functional markers of ES." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Variation in litter biomass production was modelled using…traits community-weighted mean (CWM) and functional divergence (FD) and abiotic variables (continuous variables; trait + abiotic) following Diaz et al. (2007). …The comparison between this model and the land-use alone model identifies the need for site-based information beyond a land use or land cover proxy…Litter biomass production for each pixel was calculated and mapped using model estimates...This step is critically novel as compared to a direct application of the model by Diaz et al. (2007) in that we explicitly modelled the responses of trait community-weighted means and functional divergences to environment prior to evaluating their effects on litter mass. Such an approach is the key to the explicit representation of functional variation across the landscape, as opposed to the use of unique trait values within each land use." | ABSTRACT: "Here, we propose a new approach for the analysis, mapping and understanding of multiple ES delivery in landscapes. Spatially explicit single ES models based on plant traits and abiotic characteristics are combined to identify ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spots of multiple ES delivery, and the land use and biotic determinants of such distributions. We demonstrate the value of this trait-based approach as compared to a pure land-use approach for a pastoral landscape from the central French Alps, and highlight how it improves understanding of ecological constraints to, and opportunities for, the delivery of multiple services." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "The Cultural ecosystem service map was a simple sum of maps for relevant Ecosystem Properties (produced in related EMs) after scaling to a 0–100 baseline and trimming outliers to the 5–95% quantiles (Venables&Ripley 2002)…Coefficients used for the summing of individual ecosystem properties to cultural ecosystem services were based on stakeholders’ perceptions, given positive or negative contributions." | AUTHORS DESCRIPTION: "WaSSI simulates monthly water and carbon dynamics at the Hydrologic Unit Code 8 level in the US. Three modules are integrated within the WaSSI model framework. The water balance module computes ecosystem water use, evapotranspiration and the water yield from each watershed. Water yield is sometimes referred to as runoff and can be thought of as the amount of streamflow at the outlet of each watershed due to hydrologic processes in each watershed in isolation without any flow contribution from upstream watersheds. The ecosystem productivity module simulates carbon gains and losses in each watershed or grid cell as functions of evapotranspiration. The water supply and demand module routes and accumulates the water yield through the river network according to topological relationships between adjacent watersheds, subtracts consumptive water use by humans from river flows, and compares water supply to water demand to compute the water supply stress index, or WaSSI." | ABSTRACT: "...We investigated and compared a number of existing methods for quantifying ecological integrity, shoreline protection, recreational opportunities, fisheries production, and the potential for natural products discovery from reefs. Methods were applied to mapping potential ecosystem services production around St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall, we found that a number of different methods produced similar predictions." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "A number of methods have been developed for linking biophysical attributes of reef condition, such as reef structural complexity, fish biomass, or species richness, to provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (Principe et al., 2012). We investigated the feasibility of using existing methods and data for mapping production of reef ecosystem goods and services. We applied these methods toward mapping potential ecosystem goods and services production in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)...For each of the five categories of ecosystem services, we chose a suite of models and indices for estimating potential production based on relative ease of implementation, consisting of well-defined parameters, and likely availability of input data, to maximize potential for transferability to other locations. For each method, we assembled the necessary reef condition and environmental data as spatial data layers for St. Croix (Table1). The coastal zone surrounding St. Croix was divided into 10x10 m grid cells, and production functions were applied to quantify ecosystem services provisioning in each grid cell…When data on sponge diversity is unavailable, benthic habitat coverages may be used to estimate relative magnitudes of sponge diversity and abundance as an indicator of potential pharmaceutical production (Mumby et al., 2008). For each grid cell, we estimated the contribution of coral reefs to potential pharmaceutical production as the overall weighted average of relative magnitudes of contribution across habitat types within that grid cell: Pharmaceutical product potential = ΣiciMi where ci is the fraction of area within each grid cell for each habitat type i (dense, medium dense, or sparse seagrass, mangroves, sand, macroalgae, A. palmata, Montastraea reef, patch reef, and dense or sparse gorgonians), and Mi is the relative magnitude of sponge diversity associated with each habitat." | ABSTRACT: "Land use changes are known to significantly affect the soil C balance by altering both C inputs and losses. Since the late 1990s, a large area of the Loess Plateau has undergone intensive land use changes during several ecological restoration projects to control soil erosion and combat land degradation, especially in the Grain for Green project. By using remote sensing techniques and the Yasso07 model, we simulated the dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in the Yangjuangou catchment of the Loess Plateau. The performance of the model was evaluated by comparing the simulated results with the intensive field measurements in 2006 and 2011 throughout the catchment. SOC stocks and NPP values of all land use types had generally increased during our study period. The average SOC sequestration rate in the upper 30 cm soil from 2006 to 2011 in the Yangjuangou catchment was approximately 44 g C m-2 yr-1, which was comparable to other studies in the Loess Plateau. Forest and grassland showed a more effective accumulation of SOC than the other land use types in our study area. The Yasso07 model performed reasonably well in predicting the overall dynamics of SOC stock for different land use change types at both the site and catchment scales. The assessment of the model performance indicated that the combination of Yasso07 model and remote sensing data could be used for simulating the effect of land use changes on SOC stock at catchment scale in the Loess Plateau." | DATA FACT SHEET: "This EnviroAtlas national map depicts the percent potentially restorable wetlands within each subwatershed (12-digit HUC) in the U.S. Potentially restorable wetlands are defined as agricultural areas that naturally accumulate water and contain some proportion of poorly-drained soils. The EnviroAtlas Team produced this dataset by combining three data layers - land cover, digital elevation, and soil drainage information." "To map potentially restorable wetlands, 2006 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) classes pasture/hay and cultivated crops were reclassified as potentially suitable and all other landcover classes as unsuitable. Poorly- and very poorly drained soils were identified using Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey information mainly from the higher resolution Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. The two poorly drained soil classes, expressed as percentage of a polygon in the soil survey, were combined to create a raster layer. A wetness index or Composite Topographic Index (CTI) was developed to identify areas wet enough to create wetlands. The wetness index grid, calculated from National Elevation Data (NED), relates upstream contributing area and slope to overland flow. Results from previous studies suggested that CTI values ≥ 550 captured the majority of wetlands. The three layers, when combined, resulted in four classes: unsuitable, low, moderate, and high wetland restoration potential. Areas with high potential for restorable wetlands have suitable landcover (crop/pasture), CTI values ≥ 550, and 80–100% poorly- or very poorly drained soils (PVP). Areas with moderate potential have suitable landcover, CTI values ≥ 550, and 1–79% PVP. Areas with low potential meet the landcover and 80–100% PVP criteria, but do not have CTI values ≥ 550 to corroborate wetness. All other areas were classed as unsuitable. The percentage of total land within each 12-digit HUC that is covered by potentially restorable wetlands was estimated and displayed in five classes for this map." | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Here we develop a method for assessing future scenarios of environmental management change that improve coastal ecosystem services and thereby, support the success of the SDGs. We illustrate application of the method using a case study of South Africa’s West Coast Rock Lobster fishery within the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) Marine Protected Area...We calculated the retrospective and current value of the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery using published and unpublished data from various sources and combined the market worth of landed lobster from recreational fishers, small-scale fisheries (SSF), large-scale fisheries (LSF) and poachers. Then using the InVEST tool, we combined data to build scenarios that describe possible futures for the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery (see Table 1). The first scenario, entitled ‘Business as Usual’ (BAU), takes the current situation and most up-to-date data to model the future if harvest continues at the existing rate. The second scenario is entitled ‘Redirect the Poachers’ (RP), which attempts to model implementation of strict management, whereby poaching is minimised from the Marine Protected Area and other economic and nutritional sources are made available through government initiatives. The third scenario, entitled ‘Large Scale Cutbacks’ (LSC), excludes large-scale fisheries from harvesting West Coast Rock Lobster within the TMNP Marine Protected Area." |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | WaSSI can be used to project the regional effects of forest land cover change, climate change, and water withdrawals on river flows, water supply stress, and ecosystem productivity (i.e., carbon sequestration).WaSSI can be used to evaluate trade-offs among management strategies that influence multiple ecosystem services | None identified | None identified | None Identified | Future rock lobster fisheries management |
|
Biophysical Context
|
Elevation ranges from 1552 to 2442 m, on predominately south-facing slopes | Elevations ranging from 1552 m to 2442 m, on predominantly south-facing slopes | Conterminous US | No additional description provided | Agricultural plain, hills, gulleys, forest, grassland, Central China | No additional description provided | No additional description provided |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented |
No scenarios presented ?Comment:Model can be run from WaSSI website using a historic data set (1961 - 2010) or projections from various climate models representing different emissions scenarios and time periods from recent past to 2099. |
No scenarios presented | Land use change | No scenarios presented | Fisheries exploitation; fishing vulnerability (of age classes) |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model |
Application of existing model ?Comment:. |
Application of existing model | Application of existing model | New or revised model | Application of existing model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-260 | None | None | None | Doc-343 | Doc-342 | None | None |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-65 | EM-68 | EM-69 | EM-70 | EM-71 | EM-79 | EM-80 | EM-81 | EM-82 | EM-83 | EM-65 | EM-66 | EM-68 | EM-69 | EM-70 | EM-71 | EM-79 | EM-80 | EM-82 | EM-83 | None | None | EM-466 | EM-467 | EM-469 | EM-485 | None | None |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
Not reported | Not reported | 1961-2009 | 2006-2007, 2010 | 1969-2011 | 2006-2013 | 1986-2115 |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-dependent |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | past time | Not applicable | future time |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | discrete |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | 1 |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Month | Not applicable | Year | Not applicable | Year |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or Ecological | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Physiographic or ecological | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Geopolitical | Geopolitical |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Central French Alps | Central French Alps | All 8-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUC-8) in the conterminous USA | Coastal zone surrounding St. Croix | Yangjuangou catchment | conterminous United States | Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
10-100 km^2 | 10-100 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | 1-10 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) ?Comment:Spatial grain for computations is the HUC-8. A HUC-12 version is under development. Spatial grain for computations is comprised of 16,005 polygons of various size covering 7091 ha. |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) |
|
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
20 m x 20 m | 20 m x 20 m | Computations are at the 8-digit HUC scale. MostHUC-8 watersheds are within a range of 800-8000 km^2 (500-5000 mi^2) in size. | 10 m x 10 m | 30m x 30m | irregular | Not applicable |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Analytic | Numeric | Analytic | Numeric | Analytic | Numeric |
|
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-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | No |
Yes ?Comment:p value: p<0.001 |
No | No |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None |
|
None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No |
Yes ?Comment:A validation analysis was carried out running the model using data from 1880 to 2001, and then comparing the output for the adult population with the 2001 published data. |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
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-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
|
|
None |
|
|
None |
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
| None | None | None |
|
None | None |
|
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
45.05 | 45.05 | 39.83 | 17.73 | 36.7 | 39.5 | -34.18 |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
6.4 | 6.4 | -98.58 | -64.77 | 109.52 | -98.35 | 18.35 |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Provided | Provided | Estimated | Estimated | Provided | Estimated | Provided |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Agroecosystems | Grasslands | Agroecosystems | Grasslands |
Lakes and Ponds ?Comment:Watershed model represents all land areas, major streams and rivers. Since leaf area index, LAI, is an important variable, forests, created greenspaces (e.g., urban forests) and scrub/shrub subclasses are included. |
Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Agroecosystems | Agroecosystems | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows | Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows. | Not applicable | Coral reefs | Loess plain | Terrestrial | Rocky coast, mixed coast, sandy coast, rocky inshore, sandy inshore, rocky shelf and unconsolidated shelf |
|
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Ecological scale is coarser than that of the Environmental Sub-class |
Ecological scale is coarser than that of the Environmental Sub-class ?Comment:Terrestrial characteristics are aggregated at a broad (HUC-8) scale; different types of aquatic sub-classes are not differentiated. |
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 |
Scale and taxa of organisms modeled
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
em.detail.nameOfOrgsOrGroupsHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Community | Community | Not applicable | Guild or Assemblage | Not applicable | Not applicable | Individual or population, within a species |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
| 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-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
| 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-66 | EM-81 | EM-439 | EM-465 |
EM-480
|
EM-492 |
EM-541
|
| None | None |
|
|
None | None |
|