{PAGE NAME} | {WEB AREA NAME}

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	Community flowering date, Central French Alps	Rate of Fire Spread	RUM: Valuing fishing quality, Michigan, USA	Pollinators on landfill sites, United Kingdom	Wild bees over 26 yrs of restored prairie, IL, USA	CommunityViz, Albany county, Wyoming
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	Community weighted mean flowering date, Central French Alps	Rate of Fire Spread	Random utility model (RUM) Valuing Recreational fishing quality in streams and rivers, Michigan, USA	Pollinating insects on landfill sites, East Midlands, United Kingdon	Wild bee community change over a 26 year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie, IL, USA	Wyoming Community Viz TM Partnership Phase I Pilot: Aquifer Protection and Community Viz TM in Albany County, Wyoming.
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	EU Biodiversity Action 5	*	*	*	None	*
EM Source Document ID	260	306	382 ? Comment: Data collected from Michigan Recreational Angler Survey, a mail survey administered monthly to random sample of Michigan fishing license holders since July 2008. Data available taken from 2008-2010.	389	401	479 ? Comment: Published as a report by the University of Wyoming, but no record of peer review.
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R.	Rothermel, Richard C.	Melstrom, R. T., Lupi, F., Esselman, P.C., and R. J. Stevenson	Tarrant S., J. Ollerton, M. L Rahman, J. Tarrant, and D. McCollin	Griffin, S. R, B. Bruninga-Socolar, M. A. Kerr, J. Gibbs and R. Winfree	Lieske, S. N., Mullen, S., Knapp, M., & Hamerlinck, J. D.
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2011	1972	2014	2013	2017	2003
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services	A Mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels	Valuing recreational fishing quality at rivers and streams	Grassland restoration on landfill sites in the East Midlands, United Kingdom: An evaluation of floral resources and pollinating insects	Wild bee community change over a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie	Wyoming Community Viz TM Partnership Phase I Pilot: Aquifer Protection and Community Viz TM in Albany County, Wyoming
Document Status em.detail.statusCategoryHelp ?	*	Documented, not peer reviewed	*	*	Peer reviewed and published	Not peer reviewed but is published (explain in Comment)
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	*	Published USDA Forest Service report	*	*	Published journal manuscript	Published report

Software and Access (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	*	http://firelab.org/project/farsite	*	*	Not applicable	https://communityviz.com/
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	Sandra Lavorel	Charles McHugh	Richard Melstrom	Sam Tarrant	Sean R. Griffin	Scott Lieske
Contact Address	Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France	RMRS Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 5775 US Highway 10 West, Missoula, MT 59808	Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA	RSPB UK Headquarters, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, U.K.	Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, U.S.A.	Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics University of Wyoming, Laramie WY 82071
Contact Email	sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr	cmchugh@fs.fed.us	melstrom@okstate.edu	sam.tarrant@rspb.org.uk	srgriffin108@gmail.com	lieske@uwyo.edu

EM Description (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
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."	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.	ABSTRACT: " This paper describes an economic model that links the demand for recreational stream fishing to fish biomass. Useful measures of fishing quality are often difficult to obtain. In the past, economists have linked the demand for fishing sites to species presence‐absence indicators or average self‐reported catch rates. The demand model presented here takes advantage of a unique data set of statewide biomass estimates for several popular game fish species in Michigan, including trout, bass and walleye. These data are combined with fishing trip information from a 2008–2010 survey of Michigan anglers in order to estimate a demand model. Fishing sites are defined by hydrologic unit boundaries and information on fish assemblages so that each site corresponds to the area of a small subwatershed, about 100–200 square miles in size. The random utility model choice set includes nearly all fishable streams in the state. The results indicate a significant relationship between the site choice behavior of anglers and the biomass of certain species. Anglers are more likely to visit streams in watersheds high in fish abundance, particularly for brook trout and walleye. The paper includes estimates of the economic value of several quality change and site loss scenarios. "	ABSTRACT: "...Restored landfill sites are a significant potential reserve of semi-natural habitat, so their conservation value for supporting populations of pollinating insects was here examined by assessing whether the plant and pollinator assemblages of restored landfill sites are comparable to reference sites of existing wildlife value. Floral characteristics of the vegetation and the species richness and abundance of flower-visiting insect assemblages were compared between nine pairs of restored landfill sites and reference sites in the East Midlands of the United Kingdom, using standardized methods over two field seasons. …" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "The selection criteria for the landfill sites were greater than or equal to 50% of the site restored (to avoid undue influence from ongoing landfilling operations), greater than or equal to 0.5 ha in area and restored for greater than or equal to 4 years to allow establishment of vegetation. Comparison reference sites were the closest grassland sites of recognized nature conservation value, being designated as either Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)…All sites were surveyed three times each during the fieldwork season, in Spring, Summer, and Autumn. Paired sites were sampled on consecutive days whenever weather conditions permitted to reduce temporal bias. Standardized plant surveys were used (Dicks et al. 2002; Potts et al. 2006). Transects (100 × 2m) were centered from the approximate middle of the site and orientated using randomized bearing tables. All flowering plants were identified to species level…In the first year of study, plants in flower and flower visitors were surveyed using the same transects as for the floral resources surveys. The transect was left undisturbed for 20 minutes following the initial plant survey to allow the flower visitors to return. Each transect was surveyed at a rate of approximately 3m/minute for 30 minutes. All insects observed to touch the sexual parts of flowers were either captured using a butterfly net and transferred into individually labeled specimen jars, or directly captured into the jars. After the survey was completed, those insects that could be identified in the field were recorded and released. The flower-visitor surveys were conducted in the morning, within 1 hour of midday, and in the afternoon to sample those insects active at different times. Insects that could not be identified in the field were collected as voucher specimens for later identification. Identifications were verified using reference collections and by taxon specialists. Relatively low capture rates in the first year led to methods being altered in the second year when surveying followed a spiral pattern from a randomly determined point on the sites, at a standard pace of 10 m/minute for 30 minutes, following Nielsen and Bascompte (2007) and Kalikhman (2007). Given a 2-m wide transect, an area of approximately 600m2 was sampled in each	ABSTRACT: "Restoration efforts often focus on plants, but additionally require the establishment and long-term persistence of diverse groups of nontarget organisms, such as bees, for important ecosystem functions and meeting restoration goals. We investigated long-term patterns in the response of bees to habitat restoration by sampling bee communities along a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie in north-central Illinois, U.S.A. Specifically, we examined how bee communities changed over time since restoration in terms of (1) abundance and richness, (2) community composition, and (3) the two components of beta diversity, one-to-one species replacement, and changes in species richness. Bee abundance and raw richness increased with restoration age from the low level of the pre-restoration (agricultural) sites to the target level of the remnant prairie within the first 2–3 years after restoration, and these high levels were maintained throughout the entire restoration chronosequence. Bee community composition of the youngest restored sites differed from that of prairie remnants, but 5–7 years post-restoration the community composition of restored prairie converged with that of remnants. Landscape context, particularly nearby wooded land, was found to affect abundance, rarefied richness, and community composition. Partitioning overall beta diversity between sites into species replacement and richness effects revealed that the main driver of community change over time was the gradual accumulation of species, rather than one-to-one species replacement. At the spatial and temporal scales we studied, we conclude that prairie restoration efforts targeting plants also successfully restore bee communities."	The Wyoming Community VizTM Partnership was established in 2001 to promote the use of geographic information system-based planning support systems and related decision support technologies in community land-use planning and economic development activities in the State of Wyoming. Partnership members include several state agencies, local governments and several nongovernment organizations. Partnership coordination is provided by the Wyoming Rural Development Council. Research and technical support is coordinated by the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center’s Spatial Decision Support System Research Program at the University of Wyoming. In June 2002, the Partnership initiated a three-phase plan to promote Community VizTM based planning support systems in Wyoming. Phase I of the Partnership plan was a “proof of concept” pilot project set in Albany County in southeastern Wyoming. The goal of the project was to demonstrate the application of Community VizTM to a Wyoming-specific issue (in this case, aquifer protection) and to determine potential challenges for broader adoption in terms of data requirements, computing infrastructure and technological expertise. The results of the Phase I pilot project are detailed in this report. Efforts are currently underway to secure funding for Phase II of the plan, which expands the use of Community VizTM into four additional Wyoming communities. Specific Phase II objectives are to expand the type and number of issues addressed by Community VizTM and increase the use of Community VizTM in the planning process. As a part of Phase II the Partnership will create a technical assistance network aimed at assisting communities with the technical challenges in applying the software to their planning issues. The third phase will expand the program to more communities in the state, maintain the technical assistance network, and monitor the impact of Community VizTM on the planning process.
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	*	*	*	*	None identified	None provided
Biophysical Context	Elevation ranges from 1552 to 2442 m, on predominantly south-facing slopes	Not applicable	stream and river reaches of Michigan	No additional description provided	The Nachusa Grasslands consists of over 1,900 ha of restored prairie plantings, prairie remnants, and other habitats such as wetlands and oak savanna. The area is generally mesic with an average annual precipitation of 975 mm, and most precipitation occurs during the growing season.	Groundwater recharge area, City of Laramie
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	*	*	targeted sport fish biomass	*	No scenarios presented	Continuation of trends

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application	Method Only	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Method + Application (multiple runs exist)	Model Run Associated with a Specific EM Application
New or Pre-existing EM? em.detail.newOrExistHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Continuation of trends

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

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	Doc-260 \| Doc-269	None	None	Doc-389	None	Doc-473
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	EM-697	None	None

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	2007-2008	Not applicable	2008-2010	2007-2008	1988-2014	2050
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	*	time-stationary	*
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	*
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	*
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	*
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	*

EM spatial extent (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	*	Not applicable	Watershed/Catchment/HUC	Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis)	Physiographic or ecological	Watershed/Catchment/HUC
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	Central French Alps	Not applicable	HUCS in Michigan	East Midlands	Nachusa Grasslands	Laramie City's aquifer protection area
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	*	Not applicable	100,000-1,000,000 km^2	1000-10,000 km^2.	10-100 km^2	*

Spatial Distribution of Computations (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	*	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable	*	*	other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin)	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	20 m x 20 m	Not applicable	reach in HUC	multiple unrelated locations	Area varies by site	Not applicable

EM Structure and Computation Approach (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	*	*	Numeric	*	Analytic	Numeric
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	*	*	*	*	deterministic	*
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	*	None	*	*	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	*

Model Checking Procedures Used (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	Not applicable	No	Unclear
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	Yes	Not applicable	Yes	Not applicable	No	*
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	R squared \| 45.2 \| Not applicable	*	R squared \| 0.552 \| unitless	*	None	*
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	*	*	*	Not applicable	No	Unclear
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	Not applicable	No	Unclear
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	Not applicable	No	Unclear
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	*	*	*	*	Not applicable	*

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Location of EM Application (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

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

New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Europe France	*	North America United States Michigan	Europe United Kingdom	North America United States Illinois	North America United States Wyoming

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

New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
*	*	*	*	None	*

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	45.05	-9999	45.12	52.22	41.89	41.31
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	6.4	-9999	85.18	-0.91	-89.34	-105.46
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	*	Not applicable	*	*	WGS84	*
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	*	Not applicable	Estimated	Estimated	Provided	Estimated

Environments and Scales Modeled (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	*	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Rivers and Streams	Created Greenspace \| Grasslands	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Ground Water \| Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows.	Not applicable	stream reaches	restored landfills and grasslands	Restored prairie, prairie remnants, and cropland	watershed
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 corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class	*

Organisms modeled (* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Community	Not applicable	Not applicable	Individual or population, within a species	Species	Not applicable

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
*	*	Family panfishes Species Brown trout smallmouth bass Brook trout Walleye	Genus Calliopum Lasioglossum Species Apis mellifera Bombus lapidarius Oedemera nobilis Episyrphus balteatus Bombus terrestris/lucorum Bombus pascuorum	other Bees	*

EnviroAtlas URL

New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
None Available	Average Annual Precipitation	The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), Enabling Conditions, Employment Rate	GAP Ecological Systems	GAP Ecological Systems	Dasymetric Allocation of Population, Total Annual Reduced Nitrogen Deposition, Employment Rate

EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system

* Note that run information is shown only where run data differ from the "parent" entry shown at left

CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)

New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
*	*	[Ecosystem] Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Wild animals and their outputs	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Pollination and seed dispersal	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats Pollination and seed dispersal	[Non-ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance by natural physical structures and processes Mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances By natural chemical and physical processes Not applicable [Ecosystem] Provisioning Materials Water Ground water for non-drinking purposes [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 Intellectual and representative interactions Aesthetic

National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus

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

New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
*	*	Rivers and Streams (111) Fauna (4) Fish Quality Indicator	*	None	Groundwater Water (3) Liquid water Flow Indicator

EM Variable Names (and Units)

* Note that for runs, variable name is displayed only where data for that variable differed by run AND those differences were reported in the source document. Where differences occurred but were not reported, the variable is not listed. Click on variable name to view details.

To view run information for variables, select any variable below or view run data for all variables.

Predictor

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Driving Variables (and Units) em.detail.drivingVariableHelp ?	Combination of legacy and current land use (Not applicable)	Depth of fuel (ft) Low heat content of fuel size class within fuel category (Btu/lb) Mean loading of fuel size class within fuel category (lb/ft^2) Mean particle density of fuel size class within fuel category (lb/ft^3) Mean surface-area-to-volume ratio of fuel size class within fuel category (ft^2/ft^3) Mean windspeed at midflame height (ft/min) Mineral content of fuel size class within fuel category (lb minerals/lb wood) Moisture content of fuel size class within fuel category (lb moisture/lb wood) Slope (%)	Agriculture (%) All species angling license (y/n) (Not applicable) Angler home zipcode (Not applicable) Avg. light vehicle fuel economy ($/gal) Fishing trip type (individual angler) (Not applicable) Forest (%) Gasoline price (monthly retail) ($/gal) Land use land cover class (site reach) (Not applicable) Maintenance and depreciation (vehicle) ($/mi) Mean angler income ($/yr) Mean temperature (July) (°C) NHD Hydrologic units (Not applicable) National wild and scenic rivers protection (%) Restricted angling license (y/n) (Not applicable) Round trip travel distance (mi) Stream length (km) Targeted sport fish (Not applicable) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (brook trout) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (brown trout) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (panfishes) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (smallmouth bass) (kg/ha) Targeted sport fish mean biomass (walleye) (kg/ha) Urban (%)	Pollinating insect species (Not applicable) Pollinating insect visits (No.) Season (Not applicable) Site type (landfill/reference) (Not applicable)	Agriculture within 500 m (%) Size of site (ha) Woodland within 500 m (%)	Albany county study area boundary (Not reported) City annual budget data ($) Common land use list (Not reported) Distances from residential parcels to recreational trail access (miles) Existing development (Not reported) Existing land use or zoning data (Not reported) Guidelines for future land use/zoning (Not reported) Number of vehicle trips taken (trips) Population projections (Not reported) Property, sales, and lodging tax data ($) Proportion of land development to open space seen from observation points (NA) Roads/infrastructure (Not reported) Species distribution GIS data (Not reported) Topography (Not reported) Vehicle miles traveled (miles) Water consumption data (millions of gallons) Water quality data (nitrate levels) (ppm)
Constant or Factor Variables (and Units) em.detail.constantFactorVariableHelp ?	Coefficient on combination of legacy and current land use for community-weighted mean date of flowering onset (unitless)	Mineral damping coefficient of fuel category (unitless) Moisture damping coefficient of fuel category (unitless) Ratio of surface area of fuel category to total surface area per unit fuel cell (unitless) Ratio of surface area of fuel size class to total surface area of fuel category (unitless)	Brook trout coefficient (unitless) Brown trout coefficient (unitless) Cold water (No. trips) Did not target particular species (y/n) (Not applicable) Opportunity cost constant (unitless) Panfishes coefficient (unitless) Smallmouth bass coefficient (unitless) Targed panfishes (y/n) (Not applicable) Targeted bass (yes/no) (Not applicable) Targeted other fishes (y/n) (Not applicable) Targeted trout (y/n) (Not applicable) Targeted walleye (y/n) (Not applicable) Walleye coefficient (unitless)	Year (Not applicable)	Age of site restoration (years) Management (Not applicable)	*

Intermediate

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Intermediate (Computed) Variables (and Units) em.detail.intermediateVariableHelp ?	None	Characteristic surface-area-to-volume ratio of fuel category (ft^2/ft^3) Characteristic surface-area-to-volume ratio of fuel complex (ft^2/ft^3) Heat of preignition for fuel size class within fuel category (Btu/lb) Low heat content of fuel category (Btu/lb) Mean bulk density of fuel complex (lb/ft^3) Mean packing ratio of fuel complex (unitless) Net loading of fuel category (lb/ft^2) No-wind propagating flux ratio (unitless) Potential reaction velocity of fuel complex (min^-1) Slope coefficient (unitless) Wind coefficient (unitless)	Driving costs ($) Expected targeted sport fish presence by reach (cold or warm water) (Not applicable) Opportunity cost of travel time ($) Stream reaches (fishable) within 200 miles of angler zipcode (Not applicable) Travel costs ($)	None	None	*

Response

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	EM-660	EM-709	EM-788	Continuation of trends
Observed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.observedResponseHelp ?	Community-weighted mean flowering date (observed) (Julian Day)	None	None	Autumn season richness of pollinating insects per landfill site (No.) Autumn season richness of pollinating insects per reference site (No.) Cumulative individual abundance of pollinating insects for landfill sites (No.) Cumulative individual abundance of pollinating insects for reference sites (No.) Cumulative pollinating insect species for landfill sites (No.) Cumulative pollinating insect species for reference sites (No.) Frequency of most abundant pollinating insect species on landfill sites (no. of sites) Frequency of most abundant pollinating insect species on reference sites (no. of sites) Individual abundance of the most abundant pollinating insect species on landfill sites (No.) Individual abundance of the most abundant pollinating insect species on reference sites (No.) Spring season richness of pollinating insects per landfill site (No.) Spring season richness of pollinating insects per reference site (No.) Summer season richness of pollinating insects per landfill site (No.) Summer season richness of pollinating insects per reference site (No.)	Bee abundance (No.) Bee species richness (No.)	*
Computed Response Variables (and Units) em.detail.computedResponseHelp ?	Community-weighted mean flowering date (modeled) (Julian Day)	Rate of spread (ft/min) Reaction intensity (Btu/ft^2 min)	Angler recreational demand increase for brook trout (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for brown trout (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for panfishes (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for smallmouth bass (WTP) ($) Angler recreational demand increase for walleye (WTP) ($)	None	Bee species rarified richness (No.) Richness effects (of changes in bee community composition over time) (unitless) Species replacement (of changes in bee community composition over time) (unitless) Total Jaccard dissimilarity (of changes in bee community composition over time) (unitless)	Cost of community services (millions of dollars) Local tax revenues (millions of dollars) Quantity of water (millions of gallons) Recreation access (Miles to trail) Riparian area impacted (Acres) Traffic impacts (Vehicle miles traveled) Visual impact (Not reported) Water quality (nitrate levels) (ppm) Wildlife habitat (acres)

US EPA

EcoService Models Library (ESML)

View Runs

: Wild bee community change over a 26 year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie, IL, USA (EM-788)