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-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Area and hotspots of soil retention, South Africa | Evoland v3.5 (unbounded growth), Eugene, OR, USA | Nitrogen fixation rates, Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico | Chinook salmon value (household), Yaquina Bay, OR | WESP: Riparian & stream habitat, ID, USA | WESP: Irrigation water, ID, USA | Mourning dove abundance, Piedmont region, USA | OpenNSPECT v. 1.2 |
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Area and hotspots of soil retention, South Africa | Evoland v3.5 (without urban growth boundaries), Eugene, OR, USA | Nitrogen fixation rates, Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico, USA | Economic value of Chinook salmon per household method, Yaquina Bay, OR | WESP: Riparian and stream habitat focus projects, ID, USA | WESP: Irrigation return water treatment, Idaho, USA | Mourning dove abundance, Piedmont ecoregion, USA | OpenNSPECT v. 1.2 |
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
None | Envision | US EPA | US EPA | None | None | None | None |
EM Source Document ID
|
271 |
47 ?Comment:Doc 183 is a secondary source for the Evoland model. |
338 ?Comment:WE received a draft copy prior to journal publication that was agency reviewed. |
324 |
393 ?Comment:Additional data came from electronic appendix provided by author Chris Murphy. |
393 ?Comment:Additional data came from electronic appendix provided by author Chris Murphy. |
405 | 431 |
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., and van Jaarsveld, A.S. | Guzy, M. R., Smith, C. L. , Bolte, J. P., Hulse, D. W. and Gregory, S. V. | Amelia Smith, Susan Harrell Yee, Marc Russell, Jill Awkerman and William S. Fisher | Stephen J. Jordan, Timothy O'Higgins and John A. Dittmar | Murphy, C. and T. Weekley | Murphy, C. and T. Weekley | Riffel, S., Scognamillo, D., and L. W. Burger | Eslinger, David L., H. Jamieson Carter, Matt Pendleton, Shan Burkhalter, Margaret Allen |
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2008 | 2008 | 2017 | 2012 | 2012 | 2012 | 2008 | 2012 |
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management | Policy research using agent-based modeling to assess future impacts of urban expansion into farmlands and forests | Linking ecosystem services supply to stakeholder concerns on both land and sea: An example from Guanica Bay watershed, Puerto Rico | Ecosystem Services of Coastal Habitats and Fisheries: Multiscale Ecological and Economic Models in Support of Ecosystem-Based Management | Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho-- Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context. | Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho-- Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context. | Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on northern bobwhite and grassland birds | “OpenNSPECT: The Open-source Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool.” NOAA Office for Coastal Management, Charleston, South Carolina. Accessed (11/2022) at https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/opennspect.html |
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 | Peer reviewed and published |
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published report | Published report | Published journal manuscript | Webpage |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
Not applicable | http://evoland.bioe.orst.edu/ | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/opennspect.html | |
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Benis Egoh | Michael R. Guzy | Susan H. Yee | Stephen Jordan | Chris Murphy | Chris Murphy | Sam Riffell | Not reported |
Contact Address
|
Water Resources Unit, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission - Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy | Oregon State University, Dept. of Biological and Ecological Engineering | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | U.S. EPA, Gulf Ecology Div., 1 Sabine Island Dr., Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section, Boise, ID | Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section, Boise, ID | Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA | NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413 |
Contact Email
|
Not reported | Not reported | yee.susan@epa.gov | jordan.steve@epa.gov | chris.murphy@idfg.idaho.gov | chris.murphy@idfg.idaho.gov | sriffell@cfr.msstate.edu | Not reported |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "We define the range of ecosystem services as areas of meaningful supply, similar to a species’ range or area of occupancy. The term ‘‘hotspots’’ was proposed by Norman Myers in the 1980s and refers to areas of high species richness, endemism and/or threat and has been widely used to prioritise areas for biodiversity conservation. Similarly, this study suggests that hotspots for ecosystem services are areas of critical management importance for the service. Here the term ecosystem service hotspot is used to refer to areas which provide large proportions of a particular service, and do not include measures of threat or endemism…Soil retention was modelled as a function of vegetation or litter cover and soil erosion potential. Schoeman et al. (2002) modelled soil erosion potential and derived eight erosion classes, ranging from low to severe erosion potential for South Africa. The vegetation cover was mapped by ranking vegetation types using expert knowledge of their ability to curb erosion. We used Schulze (2004) index of litter cover which estimates the soil surface covered by litter based on observations in a range of grasslands, woodlands and natural forests. According to Quinton et al. (1997) and Fowler and Rockstrom (2001) soil erosion is slightly reduced with about 30%, significantly reduced with about 70% vegetation cover. The range of soil retention was mapped by selecting all areas that had vegetation or litter cover of more than 30% for both the expert classified vegetation types and litter accumulation index within areas with moderate to severe erosion potential. The hotspot was mapped as areas with severe erosion potential and vegetation/litter cover of at least 70% where maintaining the cover is essential to prevent erosion. An assumption was made that the potential for this service is relatively low in areas with little natural vegetation or litter cover." | **Note: A more recent version of this model exists. See Related EMs below for links to related models/applications.** ABSTRACT: "Spatially explicit agent-based models can represent the changes in resilience and ecological services that result from different land-use policies…This type of analysis generates ensembles of alternate plausible representations of future system conditions. User expertise steers interactive, stepwise system exploration toward inductive reasoning about potential changes to the system. In this study, we develop understanding of the potential alternative futures for a social-ecological system by way of successive simulations that test variations in the types and numbers of policies. The model addresses the agricultural-urban interface and the preservation of ecosystem services. The landscape analyzed is at the junction of the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers adjacent to the cities of Eugene and Springfield in Lane County, Oregon." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Two general scenarios for urban expansion were created to set the bounds on what might be possible for the McKenzie-Willamette study area. One scenario, fish conservation, tried to accommodate urban expansion, but gave the most weight to policies that would produce resilience and ecosystem services to restore threatened fish populations. The other scenario, unconstrained development, reversed the weighting. The 35 policies in the fish conservation scenario are designed to maintain urban growth boundaries (UGB), accommodate human population growth through increased urban densities, promote land conservation through best-conservation practices on agricultural and forest lands, and make rural land-use conversions that benefit fish. In the unconstrained development scenario, 13 policies are mainly concerned with allowing urban expansion in locations desired by landowners. Urban expansion in this scenario was not constrained by the extent of the UGB, and the policies are not intended to create conservation land uses." | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: " …In Guánica Bay watershed, Puerto Rico, deforestation and drainage of a large lagoon have led to sediment, contaminant, and nutrient transport into the bay, resulting in declining quality of coral reefs. A watershed management plan is currently being implemented to restore reefs through a variety of proposed actions…After the workshops, fifteen indicators of terrestrial ecosystem services in the watershed and four indicators in the coastal zone were identified to reflect the wide range of stakeholder concerns that could be impacted by management decisions. Ecosystem service production functions were applied to quantify and map ecosystem services supply in the Guánica Bay watershed, as well as an additional highly engineered upper multi-watershed area connected to the lower watershed via a series of reservoirs and tunnels,…” AUTHOR''S DESCRIPTION: "The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF), a collaboration of federal, state and territorial agencies, initiated a program in 2009 to better incorporate land-based sources of pollution and socio-economic considerations into watershed strategies for coral reef protection (Bradley et al., 2016)...Baseline measures for relevant ecosystem services were calculated by parameterizing existing methods, largely based on land cover (Egoh et al., 2012; Martinez- Harms and Balvanera, 2012), with relevant rates of ecosystem services production for Puerto Rico, and applying them to map ecosystem services supply for the Guánica Bay Watershed...The Guánica Bay watershed is a highly engineered watershed in southwestern Puerto Rico, with a series of five reservoirs and extensive tunnel systems artificially connecting multiple mountainous sub-watersheds to the lower watershed of the Rio Loco, which itself is altered by an irrigation canal and return drainage ditch that diverts water through the Lajas Valley (PRWRA, 1948)...For each objective, a translator of ecosystem services production, i.e., ecological production function, was used to quantify baseline measurements of ecosystem services supply from land use/land cover (LULC) maps for watersheds across Puerto Rico...Two additional metrics, nitrogen fixation and rates of carbon sequestration into soil and sediment, were also calculated as potential measures of soil quality and agricultural productivity. Carbon sequestration and nitrogen fixation rates were assigned to each land cover class" | ABSTRACT:"Critical habitats for fish and wildlife are often small patches in landscapes, e.g., aquatic vegetation beds, reefs, isolated ponds and wetlands, remnant old-growth forests, etc., yet the same animal populations that depend on these patches for reproduction or survival can be extensive, ranging over large regions, even continents or major ocean basins. Whereas the ecological production functions that support these populations can be measured only at fine geographic scales and over brief periods of time, the ecosystem services (benefits that ecosystems convey to humans by supporting food production, water and air purification, recreational, esthetic, and cultural amenities, etc.) are delivered over extensive scales of space and time. These scale mismatches are particularly important for quantifying the economic values of ecosystem services. Examples can be seen in fish, shellfish, game, and bird populations. Moreover, there can be wide-scale mismatches in management regimes, e.g., coastal fisheries management versus habitat management in the coastal zone. We present concepts and case studies linking the production functions (contributions to recruitment) of critical habitats to commercial and recreational fishery values by combining site specific research data with spatial analysis and population models. We present examples illustrating various spatial scales of analysis, with indicators of economic value, for recreational Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon fisheries in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon) and commercial blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and penaeid shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. | A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level. | A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level. | ABSTRACT:"The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has converted just over 36 million acres of cropland into potential wildlife habitat, primarily grassland. Thus, the CRP should benefit grassland songbirds, a group of species that is declining across the United States and is of conservation concern. Additionally, the CRP is an important part of multi-agency, regional efforts to restore northern bobwhite populations. However, comprehensive assessments of the wildlife benefits of CRP at regional scales are lacking. We used Breeding Bird Survey and National Resources Inventory data to assess the potential for the CRP to benefit northern bobwhite and other grassland birds with overlapping ranges and similar habitat associations. We built regression models for 15 species in seven different ecological regions. Forty-nine of 108 total models contained significant CRP effects (P < 0.05), and 48 of the 49 contained positive effects. Responses to CRP varied across ecological regions. Only eastern meadowlark was positively related to CRP in all the ecological regions, and western meadowlark was the only species never related to CRP. CRP was a strong predictor of bird abundance compared to other land cover types. The potential for CRP habitat as a regional conservation tool to benefit declining grassland bird populations should continue to be assessed at a variety of spatial scales. We caution that bird-CRP relations varied from region to region and among species. Because the NRI provides relatively coarse resolution information on CRP, more detailed information about CRP habitats (spatial arrangement, age of the habitat (time since planting), specific conservation practices used) should be included in future assessments to fully understand where and to what extent CRP can benefit grassland birds. " | "This open-source version of the Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool is used to investigate potential water quality impacts from climate change and development to other land uses. The downloadable tool is designed to be broadly applicable for coastal and noncoastal areas alike. Tool functions simulate erosion, pollution, and the accumulation from overland flow. OpenNSPECT uses spatial elevation data to calculate flow direction and flow accumulation throughout a watershed. To do this, land cover, precipitation, and soils data are processed to estimate runoff volume at both the local and watershed levels. Coefficients representing the contribution of each land cover class to the expected pollutant load are also applied to land cover data to approximate total pollutant loads. These coefficients are taken from published sources or can be derived from local water quality studies. The output layers display estimates of runoff volume, pollutant loads, pollutant concentration, and total sediment yield. Requires MapWindow GIS v.4.8.8 (open source software)" |
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | Authors Description: " By policy, we mean land management options that span the domains of zoning, agricultural and forest production, environmental protection, and urban development, including the associated regulations, laws, and practices. The policies we used in our SES simulations include urban containment policies…We also used policies modeled on agricultural practices that affect ecoystem services and capital…" | None provided | None identified | None identified | None identified | None reported | None identified |
Biophysical Context
|
Semi-arid environment. Rainfall varies geographically from less than 50 to about 3000 mm per year (annual mean 450 mm). Soils are mostly very shallow with limited irrigation potential. | No additional description provided | No additional description provided | Yaquina Bay estuary | restored, enhanced and created wetlands | restored, enhanced and created wetlands | Conservation Reserve Program lands left to go fallow | No additional description provided |
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | Three scenarios without urban growth boundaries, and with various combinations of unconstrainted development, fish conservation, and agriculture and forest reserves. | No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented | Sites, function or habitat focus | Sites, function or habitat focus | N/A | No scenarios presented |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application | Method Only |
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | Application of existing model | New or revised model | Application of existing model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-271 ?Comment:Document 273 used for source information on soil erosion potential variable |
Doc-183 | Doc-47 | Doc-313 | Doc-314 ?Comment:Doc 183 is a secondary source for the Evoland model. |
None | Doc-324 | Doc-390 | Doc-390 | Doc-405 | None |
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-85 | EM-87 | EM-88 | EM-12 | EM-369 | None | EM-603 | EM-397 | EM-706 | EM-729 | EM-730 | EM-734 | EM-743 | EM-749 | EM-750 | EM-756 | EM-757 | EM-758 | EM-759 | EM-760 | EM-761 | EM-763 | EM-764 | EM-766 | EM-767 | EM-732 | EM-737 | EM-738 | EM-739 | EM-741 | EM-742 | EM-751 | EM-768 | EM-718 | EM-734 | EM-760 | EM-761 | EM-763 | EM-764 | EM-766 | EM-767 | EM-768 | EM-831 | EM-838 | EM-839 | EM-840 | EM-841 | EM-842 | EM-844 | EM-845 | EM-846 | EM-847 | EM-940 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
Not reported | 1990-2050 | 1978 - 2009 | 2003-2008 | 2010-2011 | 2010-2012 | 2008 | Not applicable |
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary |
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | Not applicable | past time | past time | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 2 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Year | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Geopolitical | Geopolitical | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Geopolitical | Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis) | Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis) | Physiographic or ecological | Not applicable |
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
South Africa | Junction of McKenzie and Willamette Rivers, adjacent to the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane Co., Oregon, USA | Guanica Bay watershed | Pacific Northwest | Wetlands in idaho | Wetlands in idaho | Piedmont Ecoregion | Not applicable |
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
>1,000,000 km^2 | 10-100 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 | 100,000-1,000,000 km^2 | 100,000-1,000,000 km^2 | 100,000-1,000,000 km^2 | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
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 lumped (in all cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature |
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Distributed across catchments with average size of 65,000 ha | varies | HUC | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 30 m |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Numeric | Analytic | Analytic | Numeric | Numeric | Analytic | Analytic |
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | stochastic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | Unclear | No | No | No | No | Yes | Not applicable |
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Not applicable |
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None |
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | Not applicable |
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Not applicable |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Not applicable |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Unclear | Not applicable |
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None |
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
None | None | None |
|
None | None | None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
-30 | 44.11 | 17.96 | 44.62 | 44.06 | 44.06 | 36.23 | Not applicable |
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
25 | -123.09 | -67.02 | -124.02 | -114.69 | -114.69 | -81.9 | Not applicable |
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | Not applicable |
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Forests | Agroecosystems | Created Greenspace | Inland Wetlands | Forests | Agroecosystems | Created Greenspace | Grasslands | Scrubland/Shrubland | Barren | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Inland Wetlands | Inland Wetlands | Grasslands | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) |
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Not reported | Agricultural-urban interface at river junction | Tropical terrestrial | Yaquina Bay estuary and ocean | created, restored and enhanced wetlands | created, restored and enhanced wetlands | grasslands | Coastal and non-coastal |
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class |
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Other (multiple scales) | Not applicable | Not applicable | Species | Not applicable |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
EM-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
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-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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-86 |
EM-333 ![]() |
EM-432 | EM-604 |
EM-718 ![]() |
EM-743 ![]() |
EM-843 | EM-938 |
None |
|
|
|
None | None |
|
None |