EcoService Models Library (ESML)
loading
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.
EM Identity and Description
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Community flowering date, Central French Alps | Birds in estuary habitats, Yaquina Estuary, WA, USA | Mangrove development, Tampa Bay, FL, USA | Cultural ecosystem services, Bilbao, Spain | Coral taxa and land development, St.Croix, VI, USA | SIRHI, St. Croix, USVI | COBRA v 4.1 |
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Community weighted mean flowering date, Central French Alps | Bird use of estuarine habitats, Yaquina Estuary, WA, USA | Mangrove wetland development, Tampa Bay, FL, USA | Cultural ecosystem services, Bilbao, Spain | Coral taxa richness and land development, St.Croix, Virgin Islands, USA | SIRHI (SImplified Reef Health Index), St. Croix, USVI | COBRA (CO–Benefits Risk Assessment) v 4.1 |
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
EU Biodiversity Action 5 | US EPA | US EPA |
None ?Comment:EU Mapping Studies |
US EPA | US EPA | US EPA |
EM Source Document ID
|
260 | 275 | 97 | 191 | 96 | 335 |
437 ?Comment:User's manual is provided at the webpage. |
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R. | Frazier, M. R., Lamberson, J. O. and Nelson, W. G. | Osland, M. J., Spivak, A. C., Nestlerode, J. A., Lessmann, J. M., Almario, A. E., Heitmuller, P. T., Russell, M. J., Krauss, K. W., Alvarez, F., Dantin, D. D., Harvey, J. E., From, A. S., Cormier, N. and Stagg, C.L. | Casado-Arzuaga, I., Onaindia, M., Madariaga, I. and Verburg P. H. | Oliver, L. M., Lehrter, J. C. and Fisher, W. S. | Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., and L. M. Oliver | US EPA |
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2011 | 2014 | 2012 | 2013 | 2011 | 2014 | 2021 |
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services | Intertidal habitat utilization patterns of birds in a Northeast Pacific estuary | Ecosystem development after mangrove wetland creation: plant–soil change across a 20-year chronosequence | Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning | Relating landscape development intensity to coral reef condition in the watersheds of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands | Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI | CO-Benefits Risk Assessment Health Impacts Screening and Mapping Tool (COBRA) |
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 and published |
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Webpage |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | https://www.epa.gov/cobra | |
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Sandra Lavorel |
M. R. Frazier ?Comment:Present address: M. R. Frazier National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State St. Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA |
Michael Osland | Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga | Leah Oliver | Susan H. Yee | Emma Zinsmeister |
Contact Address
|
Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France | Western Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific coastal Ecology Branch, 2111 SE marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Ecology Division, gulf Breeze, FL 32561 | Plant Biology and Ecology Department, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Campus de Leioa, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain | National Health and Environmental Research Effects Laboratory | US EPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs’ Climate Protection Partnerships Division |
Contact Email
|
sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr | frazier@nceas.ucsb.edu | mosland@usgs.gov | izaskun.casado@ehu.es | leah.oliver@epa.gov | yee.susan@epa.gov | zinsmeister.emma@epa.gov |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
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." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Community-weighted mean date of flowering onset was modelled using mixed models with land use and abiotic variables as fixed effects (LU + abiotic model) and year as a random effect…and modelled for each 20 x 20 m pixel using GLM estimated effects for each land use category and estimated regression coefficients with abiotic variables." | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "To describe bird utilization patterns of intertidal habitats within Yaquina estuary, Oregon, we conducted censuses to obtain bird species and abundance data for the five dominant estuarine intertidal habitats: Zostera marina (eelgrass), Upogebia (mud shrimp)/ mudflat, Neotrypaea (ghost shrimp)/sandflat, Zostera japonica (Japanese eelgrass), and low marsh. EPFs were developed for the following metrics of bird use: standardized species richness; Shannon diversity; and density for the following four groups: all birds, all birds excluding gulls, waterfowl (ducks and geese), and shorebirds." | ABSTRACT: "Mangrove wetland restoration and creation effortsare increasingly proposed as mechanisms to compensate for mangrove wetland losses. However, ecosystem development and functional equivalence in restored and created mangrove wetlands are poorly understood. We compared a 20-year chronosequence of created tidal wetland sites in Tampa Bay, Florida (USA) to natural reference mangrove wetlands. Across the chronosequence, our sites represent the succession from salt marsh to mangrove forest communities. Our results identify important soil and plant structural differences between the created and natural reference wetland sites; however, they also depict a positive developmental trajectory for the created wetland sites that reflects tightly coupled plant-soil development. Because upland soils and/or dredge spoils were used to create the new mangrove habitats, the soils at younger created sites and at lower depths (10–30 cm) had higher bulk densities, higher sand content, lower soil organic matter (SOM), lower total carbon (TC), and lower total nitrogen (TN) than did natural reference wetland soils. However, in the upper soil layer (0–10 cm), SOM, TC, and TN increased with created wetland site age simultaneously with mangrove forest growth. The rate of created wetland soil C accumulation was comparable to literature values for natural mangrove wetlands. Notably, the time to equivalence for the upper soil layer of created mangrove wetlands appears to be faster than for many other wetland ecosystem types. Collectively, our findings characterize the rate and trajectory of above- and below-ground changes associated with ecosystem development in created mangrove wetlands; this is valuable information for environmental managers planning to sustain existing mangrove wetlands or mitigate for mangrove wetland losses." | ABSTRACT "This paper presents a method to quantify cultural ecosystem services (ES) and their spatial distribution in the landscape based on ecological structure and social evaluation approaches. The method aims to provide quantified assessments of ES to support land use planning decisions. A GIS-based approach was used to estimate and map the provision of recreation and aesthetic services supplied by ecosystems in a peri-urban area located in the Basque Country, northern Spain. Data of two different public participation processes (frequency of visits to 25 different sites within the study area and aesthetic value of different landscape units) were used to validate the maps. Three maps were obtained as results: a map showing the provision of recreation services, an aesthetic value map and a map of the correspondences and differences between both services. The data obtained in the participation processes were found useful for the validation of the maps. A weak spatial correlation was found between aesthetic quality and recreation provision services, with an overlap of the highest values for both services only in 7.2 % of the area. A consultation with decision-makers indicated that the results were considered useful to identify areas that can be targeted for improvement of landscape and recreation management." | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "In this exploratory comparison, stony coral condition was related to watershed LULC and LDI values. We also compared the capacity of other potential human activity indicators to predict coral reef condition using multivariate analysis." (294) | 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...A number of indicators have been proposed for measuring reef integrity, defined as the capacity to maintain healthy function and retention of diversity (Turner et al., 2000). The Simplified Integrated Reef Health Index (SIRHI) combines four attributes of reef condition into a single index: SIRHI = ΣiGi where Gi are the grades on a scale of 1 to 5 for four key reef attributes: percent coral cover, percent macroalgal cover, herbivorous fish biomass, and commercial fish biomass (Table2; Healthy Reefs Initiative, 2010). For a number of coral reef condition attributes, including fish richness, coral richness, and reef structural complexity, available data were point surveys from field monitoring by the US Environmental Protection Agency (see Oliver et al. (2011)) or the NOAA Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring Program (see Pittman et al. (2008)). To generate continuous maps of coral condition for St. Croix, we fitted regression tree models to point survey data for St. Croix and then used models to predict reef condition in non-sampled locations (Fig. 1). In general, we followed the methods of Pittman et al. (2007) which generated predictive models for fish richness using readily available benthic habitat maps and bathymetry data. Because these models rely on readily available data (benthic habitat maps and bathymetry data), the models have the potential for high transferability to other locati | Introduction: "COBRA is a screening tool that provides preliminary estimates of the impact of air pollution emission changes on ambient particulate matter (PM) air pollution concentrations, translates this into health effect impacts, and then monetizes these impacts, as illustrated below. The model does not require expertise in air quality modeling, health effects assessment, or economic valuation. Built into COBRA are emissions inventories, a simplified air quality model, health impact equations, and economic valuations ready for use, based on assumptions that EPA currently uses as reasonable best estimates. COBRA also enables advanced users to import their own datasets of emissions inventories, population, incidence, health impact functions, and valuation functions. Analyses can be performed at the state or county level and across the 14 major emissions categories (these categories are called “tiers”) included in the National Emissions Inventory. COBRA presents results in tabular as well as geographic form, and enables policy analysts to obtain a first-order approximation of the benefits of different mitigation scenarios under consideration. However, COBRA is only a screening tool. More sophisticated, albeit time- and resource-intensive, modeling approaches are currently available to obtain a more refined picture of the health and economic impacts of changes in emissions. EPA initially developed COBRA as a desktop application. In 2021, EPA released a web-based version of the tool, known as the COBRA Web Edition. Although the desktop version and web versions of COBRA both use the same methodology to calculate outdoor air quality and health impacts from changes in air pollution emissions, the desktop version offers additional advanced features that are not included in the more streamlined Web Edition. In particular, the desktop version is preloaded with input data on emissions, population, and baseline health incidence for 2016, 2023, and 2028; the Web Edition includes data only for 2023. Similarly, the desktop version allows users to import custom input datasets, while the Web Edition does not. The Web Edition, however, does not require the user to download or install additional software, and it runs more quickly than the desktop version. Users might choose to use the desktop version if they would like to use advanced features, such as custom input data and/or use the preloaded data for 2016 or 2028. Otherwise, users may choose to use the Web Edition for data analysis relevant to 2023. The process for entering emissions input data into COBRA is very similar for the desktop and web versions of the tool. The remainder of this User’s Manual focuses on the steps required to run the desktop version of the tool. The same general process can be used with the Web Edition." |
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | Not applicable | Land management, ecosystem management, response to EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy | Not applicable | None identified | None identified |
Biophysical Context
|
Elevation ranges from 1552 to 2442 m, on predominantly south-facing slopes | Estuarine intertidal, eelgrass, mudflat, sandflat and low marsh | mangrove forest,Salt marsh, estuary, sea level, | Northern Spain; Bizkaia region | nearshore; <1.5 km offshore; <12 m depth | No additional description provided | No additional description provided |
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented | Not applicable | No scenarios presented | Not applicable | No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method Only |
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | Application of existing 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-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-260 | Doc-269 | None | None | None | None | None | None |
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-65 | EM-66 | EM-68 | EM-69 | EM-70 | EM-79 | EM-80 | EM-81 | EM-82 | EM-83 | None | None | None | None | None | None |
EM Modeling Approach
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
2007-2008 | December 2007 - November 2008 | 1990-2010 | 2000 - 2007 | 2006-2007 | 2006-2007, 2010 | Not applicable |
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-stationary | Not applicable |
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | continuous | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Physiographic or Ecological | Geopolitical | Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Geopolitical |
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Central French Alps | Yaquina Estuary (intertidal), Oregon, USA | Tampa Bay | Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt | St.Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands | Coastal zone surrounding St. Croix | Not applicable |
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
10-100 km^2 | 1-10 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | 10-100 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
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) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
area, for pixel or radial feature | other (habitat type) | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature | map scale, for cartographic feature |
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
20 m x 20 m | 0.87-104.29 ha | m^2 | 2 m x 2 m | Not applicable | 10 m x 10 m | user defined |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic |
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | stochastic |
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | Unclear | No | No | Yes | Yes | Not applicable |
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | Not applicable |
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None |
|
None | None |
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Not applicable |
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Not applicable |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | Yes | No | No | No | Not applicable |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | No | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
|
|
|
|
None | None | None |
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
None |
|
Comment:Realm: Tropical Atlantic Region: West Tropical Atlantic Province: Tropical Northwestern Atlantic Ecoregion: Floridian |
None |
|
|
None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
45.05 | 44.62 | 27.8 | 43.25 | 17.75 | 17.73 | Not applicable |
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
6.4 | -124.06 | -82.4 | -2.92 | -64.75 | -64.77 | Not applicable |
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | None provided | WGS84 | WGS84 | NAD83 | WGS84 | Not applicable |
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Provided | Provided | Estimated | Provided | Estimated | Estimated | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Agroecosystems | Grasslands | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Forests | Agroecosystems | Created Greenspace | Grasslands | Scrubland/Shrubland | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) |
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows. | Estuarine intertidal | Created Mangrove wetlands | none | stony coral reef | Coral reefs | Not applicable |
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 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 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 of differentiation of organisms modeled
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Community | Guild or Assemblage | Not applicable | Not applicable | Guild or Assemblage | Guild or Assemblage | Not applicable |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
None Available |
|
|
None Available |
|
|
None Available |
EnviroAtlas URL
EM-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
None Available | None Available | None Available | Percent IUCN Status II, Percent GAP Status 1 & 2 | None Available | None Available | Total Annual Nitrogen Deposition |
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-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
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-71 | EM-103 | EM-154 | EM-193 | EM-260 | EM-418 | EM-944 |
None |
|
|
|
|
None | None |